Final Draft: Nuclear Power For The Win!

The way that energy is produced is of great impact to humanity, as it directly results in how industry, technology, and the economy are impacted.  How do all these relate to the production of energy? It is when energy is cheap and plentiful that it can be wasted, when it is plentiful and cheap that an economy and industry excel.  These three aspects of a society are in direct conflict due to decisions that are made with the knowledge of the cost of energy.  To achieve the best compromise between all three of these, it is vitally important to secure a form of energy that is powerful, plentiful, and protective of the environment and secure it in such a way that the costs do not rise.  Although coal is a cheap energy that is easily used, nuclear energy is better because it has less harmful side effects, is better for environment, and is reusable and economic.

Any energy source that is used to produce power has side effects and risks associated with it.  The very best long-term solutions that are in existence are solar and hydroelectric power.  However, these power sources are extremely costly to build per joule of power.  To add to this is the fact that these power sources, especially hydro, can be extremely disruptive and harmful to ecologies if not carefully installed.  Nuclear power is then the next best choice, although it too has serious ramifications for the environment.  Sixty-two percent of the public of America in a survey supports the use of nuclear power (Beaver, 2011).  To dismiss the risk of a nuclear accident or crisis is ignorant at best, and flippant at worst.  The risk associated with a nuclear power plant is high, that cannot be overstressed, but if humans do not take these risks, the earth will die from the dangers associated with other power production mediums.  To first waylay fears, the tragedy suffered at Chernobyl was absolutely resultant upon ignoring the design parameters and operator error (Hodgson, 2009).  The incidents suffered currently in Japan and in Three Mile Island are isolated cases and should be scrutinized individually, as all cases should be.  The benefit of living in the twenty first century is that reactor technology is much better than it was in its inception (Miller, 2011).

The reactor technology of today is far more safe and secure than that of the past.  Several of Japans reactors involved in the 2011 tsunami tragedy were old models based on obsolete technology.  Japan suffered a humongous earthquake followed by a massive tsunami, both of which did not cause the nuclear crisis in Japan.  The issue that made the situation critical was that the water damaged the generators of several of the reactors, which in turn limited the reactors to electric battery backup (Maugh II, 2011).  When these batteries were used and the ability to cool the reactors was gone, they began to heat up.  After this, the external housing that the water was transported to began to heat up and water vapor began forming.  The heat became so intense that the water proceeded to separate from H₂O into hydrogen and oxygen.  Enough pressure built up that the hydrogen was able to combust, thus causing the top of the external reactor to blow off.  This is what the American public witnessed on the televised news stations (Mufson, 2011).  It is laudable however that the nuclear reactors were contained from exposing the fuel rods and that a much greater disaster was thwarted.  The other case of a diverted nuclear disaster was Three Mile Island, which occurred on US soil.  What occurred at Three Mile Island was that the reactor did indeed meltdown, but the outer container walls held the damaged core container.  Even though the crisis was averted, the public confidence of nuclear power was shaken.  Many of the surrounding individuals were extremely upset, and felt unable to trust the officials in charge of the investigation (Culley, 2010).  To this end, the nuclear reactors that are installed need to be extremely safe, easy to diagnose, and very hardy.  The risks of a nuclear accident damage the public’s view of how amazing nuclear reactors are and serve only to tarnish nuclear power’s exemplary records.

The risks associated with nuclear power and coal indeed overlap, as both can cause tumors and mutations if improperly contained or even in normal usage.  It has been found that there is an increase of Leukemia in the people living around the nuclear power plants in Germany, so fears are not unfounded (Fairlie, 2010).  Cancer is one of the most excruciating deaths, and controlled measures of energy production is necessary.  Where the two differ, however, is that a nuclear power plant operating at nominal efficiency and safety is close to harmless.  It is even expected that the body will improve under small amounts of radiation as the body will increase its protective measures naturally (Cuttler, 2009).  The coal power plant disperses fine particulates of ash and dust as well as CO₂, all of which are very unhealthy for people.  Of course, nuclear power has far greater potential to do harm to the surrounding area, but it can also save the planet, which is why it is so important that the nuclear power plants do not malfunction.  To this end, as long as the nuclear power plant can be safely run, it will be better for the public than when compared to coal.  China, a country that is surging forth in the largest industrial revolution known to man, is proof that coal is horrible for the population, as the Olympic officials did not like the air quality.  To say that the power provided by coal is clean is not true; the expelled air is poisonous and contributes to acidic rain whereas nuclear does not.  The biggest issue surrounding air quality and nuclear power is the danger of released isotopes in the air.  This can only happen if there is an accidental leak, or an intentional one.  Because of the high threat of terroristic attacks, the possibility of a dirty bomb is moderate, and some think that recycling increases the possibility of this (Von Hippel, 2008).  It is inconceivable that a terrorist could gain nuclear material, but the risk is too high to ignore.  Is the threat of terrorists worth the continued pollution of the planet out of fear?  No, nuclear fuel is useful until it is no longer radioactive, and recycling will always be worthwhile.  In the end, as long as the terrorists are kept at bay, then the air pollution of a nuclear reactor is miniscule compared to that of a coal power plant.

The air that is produced from a nuclear power plant is only slightly radioactive.  Actually, it is the water vapor that is slightly irradiated, and it is far, far below the amounts necessary to damage the surrounding area.  Coal on the other hand, the second largest way to produce power, is a damaging ingredient to the atmosphere.  The expelled air from a coal power plant is high in particulates, high in carbon dioxide, and reasonably high in nitrogen dioxide.  These are all very harmful to a human, so is radiation, but in small amounts, even in a lifetime, it is insufficient to cause harm (Rogner, 2010).  The problem with these power sources is not only on how the material effects the environment when it is in use, but also in how it is refined, how it is obtained, and how it is disposed.  The way that coal is obtained requires large open pit mines, which are humongous, an eyesore, and an environmental curse.  Nuclear mining is far more specialized and takes place in far smaller areas as well as not leaving an open pit.  As the resources are gained from the ground, they require power to transport them to their destinations of usage and the prior refinement.  The more material that is to be transported, the more energy required to move it.  Coal is far more voluminous than compressed nuclear fuel, and therefore requires massive amounts of energy to transport.  Coal, after it is recovered, goes through a very brief refinement period before it is ready to be used.  Nuclear fuel goes through weeks of centrifugal refinement and filtering before the isotopes are ready to be used (Childress, 2010).  The explanation of why a nuclear pellet is equivalent to several hundred pounds of coal in energy is due to production; far more effort is put into the creation of a nuclear pellet than a piece of coal.  Coal is disposed by burning, and the remaining carbon is discarded.  Nuclear power however, must be disposed of in a concise and calculated manner.  In America, some of the waste is directly discarded and some is recycled in “closed cycle” processes (MacFarlane, 2010).  The waste is very limited in nuclear power, but coal always will be more wasteful and repugnant to the atmosphere.

Obviously the most convenient power source is the cheapest, but in America, and in other educated countries, the need to balance the welfare of the planet with cheap power is important.  To do this, the country needs to decide which is more important, the planet or energy. There is a solution that the country needs to embrace for its energy needs; cheap energy is obtainable with nuclear reactors as long as the necessary stops are put in place to ensure no disaster occurs (Smith, 2008).  Despite the public hysteria regarding nuclear power in America, no person has died because of it (Stieglitz, 2009).  Any accidents that occur in a nuclear power plant raise the cost of operating it, and reduce the cheapness of its power.  Any major power plant accident that damages the surrounding environment is a cost too high.  What is more, the damage will often be more costly than the amount of capital that would be saved.  To this end, it is essential that the start up costs of a nuclear reactor not be the deciding factor, as they often pay for themselves in the first few years.  Nuclear power plants are key to the energy production in America, without them the cost of electricity would skyrocket (Roman, 2009).  Coal power plants, on the other hand often have accidents and breakdowns, and these breakdowns simply add to the already high cost of a coal power plant.  Furthermore, when a fuel pellet of a nuclear reactor is used, it can be refined and put back into use, whereas with coal, after it is used, it will simply disperse, along with the pollutants into the atmosphere.  The cost of nuclear power is truly of significant impact for comparable size plants of coal and nuclear.  The nuclear power plant has a far higher efficiency as well as a far larger power production when compared to its coal relative.  All these benefits do have a major stipulation in that other countries are courting nuclear power, and this could eventually lead to an increased cost of raw fuel.  This is unsurprising, however, as coal also is a natural resource that the world is competing to use.  The power of nuclear isotopes is far cheaper and powerful than the power of coal, although coal is far more common.  Both the people and the country need to build superior nuclear power plants over the inferior and less advanced coal power plants.

The nuclear power production of America is low because the populous does not have the education necessary to sway their minds.  If more individuals were to be better educated in regards to the power production in America, they would choose nuclear.  The disasters that have befallen mankind due to nuclear power are miniscule to the losses due to other forms of power.  Japan, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl have a total tally of few lives compared to coal.  To be truly safe, nuclear power needs to continue to improve and become ever more secure.  Nuclear power is superior compared to coal in that it has higher efficiencies, the capability to be recycled, the possibility of lower environmental damage, and cheaper power production per joule.

References:

Beaver, W. (2011). The Failed Promise of Nuclear Power. Independent Review, 15(3), 399-411.  Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com, ISSN: 57309152

Childress, V. W. (2010). Producing Nuclear Power. Technology Teacher, 69(4), 5-10.  Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com, ISSN: 07463537

Culley, Marci, Angelique, Holly.  (2010).  Nuclear Power: Renaissance or Relapse?  Global Climate Change and Long-Term Three Mile Island Activist’s Narratives.  American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3), 231-246.  Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com, ISSN: 00910562

Cuttler, Jerry M., Pollycove, Myron.  (2009).  Nuclear Energy and Health: And the Benefits of Low-Dose Radiation Hormesis.  Dose-Response, 7(1), 52-89.  Retreived from http://web.ebscohost.com, DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.08-024.Cuttler

Fairlie, I. (2010). Childhood Cancer Near German Nuclear Power Stations. Journal of Environmental Science & Health, Part C, 28(1), 1-21.  Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com, doi: 10.1080/10590500903585366

Hodgson, P.E. (2009). The Politics of Nuclear Power. Political Science Reviewer, 38, 47-55.  Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com, ISSN: 00267457

MacFarlane, A. (2010). Nuclear Power-A Panacea for Future Energy Needs? Environment, 52(2), 34-46.  Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com, ISSN: 00139157

Maugh II, Thomas H. (2011).  Japan Q&A: What caused the blast at nuclear plant, and what are officials doing to avert a meltdown?  Los Angeles Times.  Retreived from http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/13/science/la-sci-japan-quake-qa-20110313

Miller, J. R., Stakenborghs, B., Tsai, R. (2011). Improving Nuclear Power Plant’s Operational Efficiencies in the U.S.A.Mechanical Engineering, 133(1), 47-52.  Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com, ISSN: 00256501

Mufson, Steven, Branigin, William.  (2011).  Japan Evacuates Thousands from Vicinity of Two Nuclear Power Plants.  The Washington Post.  Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/11/AR2011031103673.html

Rogner, H. H. (2010). Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development. Journal of International Affairs, 64(1), 137-163.  Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com, ISSN: 0022197X

Roman, H. T. (2009). Revisiting the Nuclear Power Option. Technology Teacher, 68(7), 30-33.  Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com, ISSN: 07463537

Smith, Zachary A. (2008). Renewable and alternative energy sources: a reference handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.  Retrieved from: http://books.google.com/books?id=OlA-fN3Bd4QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Renewable+and+alternative+energy+sources:+a+reference+handbook+smith&source=bl&ots=cGqIWMLPE8&sig=c7H_GeqPIreyvt8uoroTlWpkgVU&hl=en&ei=BE2tTfCGDvHbiAKkhaTDDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Renewable%20and%20alternative%20energy%20sources%3A%20a%20reference%20handbook%20smith&f=false

Stieglitz, R. Docksai, R. (2009). Why the World May Turn to Nuclear. Futurist, 43(6), 16-22.  Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com, ISSN: 00163317

Von Hippel, Frank N.  (2008).  RETHINKING Nuclear Fuel Recycling.  Scientific American, 298(5), 88-93.  Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com, ISSN: 00368733

Wald, Matthew L. (2009).  What Now For Nuclear Waste?  Scientific American, 301(2), 46-53.  Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com, ISSN: 00368733

Research Final Draft: Battling Global Warming…Winner Takes the World.

Battling Global Warming…Winner Takes the World.

Homes may be torn apart, lives may be lost, and the world may end. One question weighs heavily out in the open, will the sun really shine tomorrow? 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 effects 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 higher the 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). An increase in temperature will also make consumable foods more susceptibile to diseases as well as increasingly difficult to remove from food products. Not only will humans be affected by the spread of diseases through food, but rodents will be amongst the first hosts to pick up the diseases and spread them at a very quick pace (Ebi, Grambsch, Mills, & Smith, 2006).

As if health problems weren’t a big enough problem, global warming is also placing an attack on the environment!  Warming temperatures are melting ice caps which serves as 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.  Without the coral reefs, even the smallest of marine species such as mollusks and reef fish would die, thinking about it from a local perspective, mollusks feed anywhere between thirty and forty million people every single year.  Fishing for these marine habitants is a lifestyle for many people around the world, this is just one example of how quickly the negative chain effect of global warming can quickly devastate many different enviroments in a very wide range.    Droughts caused by global warming may dry upwards of ninety percent of the Earth’s wetlands which serve as breeding grounds for migrating animals (NWF, 2011).

After numerous testing has been performed on different regions of the planet, it is proven that geographical features may play a distinct role in the vulnerability of a specific environment (Hattermann, Levermann, 2010).  Tropical regions are of some of the worst environments that are likely to be affected by global warming (Laurance, Carolina, Useche, Shoo, Herzog, Kessler, Escobar, Del Coro Arizmendi, 2011). To begin with, tropical species are adapt to limited variation in their temperatures as well as geographic seasons. Also, species that live in the tropical habitats are often limited on their “cool refuges,” therefore an average rise in temperature at the rate in which its happening, may pose a deadly threat (Muller-Landau, Schipper,  & Wright, 2009). In addition, tropical environments provide roughly fifty percent of the streams, rivers and other bodies of water that are present on land which empty into the ocean (Schmidt, 2010).  These on-land water sources not only support hundreds of different species of vegetation and animals on land, but they also support all the underwater marine life as well. Realizing that those environments are the ones most vulnerable to global warming, and what the destruction of such a crucial part of the globe would cause, is reason enough to think twice before carelessly emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (Shepardson, Niyogi, Soyoung, Charusombat, 2011).  All it would take is one catastrophic attack of global warming upon the tropics to set an imbalance all over the world.  But surely, not just the tropical environments are being effected.

With numbers of people ranging in the tens of thousands now being effected by tropical cyclones, global warming threatens lives all across the globe. With both an increase the the rise of sea level as well as the intensifying hurricanes errupting all over the world, the real issue of weather-related catastrophes has now arrived with a bang (Mousavi, Irish, Frey, Olivera, & Edge, 2011).  True, weather-related catastrophes has caused destruction since the beginning of time, but in this day and age with the resources readily availiable for extensive testing and research, it is apparent that the disasters are getting increasingly worse as time goes on. Researchers have linked global warming to thousands of disasters all showing a similar trend that thinks them all together, this trend is called global warming!  Storms are gaining strength and the wrath of the ocean is a real force to be reckoned with. Suffering and panic are evident, and one can only hope that the real life examples of the power of mother nature can serve as an eye opener showing the need for change.

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 undoubtedly sank a whole entire building in one gulp from the infamous sinkholes littered around numerous continents by the storms (Romm, 2011).

Across the globe, many view global warming as an illegitimate threat created to be a proposterous thought used to persuade people into buying expensive environmentally safe products, but in all reality, if research is performed, statistics will prove quite the opposite. From hurricane Katrina to the melting arctic, this planet is slowly being destroyed. The common factor in these disasters as well as countless others…global warming. Scientists have dedicated their lives to showing humans the destruction that has been caused by the careless actions which have begun obliterate the planet, and their work has not gone in vain (Westmoreland, 2010). Articles and books galore document the links between global warming and its negative effects on the planet, and for anyone that is willing to take a look, the resources are indefinitely availiable.

So what can be done to help fix the tremendously important problem of global warming? If everyone was to research on the topic and come to an understanding on how their everyday products affect the environment, then each individual would be able to proactively do their part to save it. Everyday tools ranging from household cleaners all the way to the automobiles used for transportation, modern research is coming out with resources that are both more effecient as well as better for the environment. Simply choosing to walk the mile and a half to the grocery store and using paper bags instead of plastic is a good way to reduce the poisenous greenhouse gas emissions that pollute society and create holes in the ozone layer. Another environmentally friendly tactic is to plant trees. As a general rule, everybody uses products that are in some way made from trees, planting a tree to replace those that have been destroyed by the effects of global warming is a good way to increase natural habitat needed for all aspects of life (Amram & Kulatilaka, 2009).  Another way that the public can actively get involved is to make it increasingly difficult for large production companies to create adverse amounts of greenhouse gas emissions by tightening the regulation allowing only certain amounts  of emissions to be produced (Air Pollution Consultant, 2011).   Whatever the chosen method, go the extra mile, take that one last step! Every little bit helps when it comes to fighting this deadly force!

Research has proven itself worthy of concern, global warming is real and its happening at this very moment! Earth has served mankind well since the beginning of existance, but now it is time for humans to join in the fight and do what is necessary to ensure the planet remains sustainable. Nature is no longer able to compete with the destructive actions of humans and its time to make a stand. 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.

References

Air Pollution Consultant. (2011).  Multiple Actions Issued on Permitting of Greenhouse Gas Emission Sources. Vol. 21 Issue 2, p2.38-2.41, 4p

Amram, Martha, & Kulatilaka. (2009). The Invisible Green Hand: How Individual Decisions and Markets Can Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. California Management Review,Vol. 51 Issue 2, p194-218

Climate Institute. Human Health. (2010). http://www.climate.org/topics/health.html.

Ebi, Kristie, Grambsch, Anne, Mills, David, & Smith Joel. (2006). Environmental Health Perspectives. Climate Change and Human Health Impacts in the United States: An Update on the Results of the U.S. National Assessment. Vol. 114 Issue 9, p1318-1324, 7p

Foxx, Michael. (2011). Weather Catastrophes Linked to Global Warming. http://www.guilfordian.com/world-nation/weather-catastrophes-linked-to-global-warming-1.1658838.

Hattermann, T., & Levermann, A. (2010). Response of Southern Ocean Circulation to Global Warming May Enhance Basal Ice Shelf Melting Around Antarctica. Climate Dynamics, 35(5), 741-756. doi:10.1007/s00382-009-0643-3

Laurance, W. F., Carolina Useche, D. D., Shoo, L. P., Herzog, S. K., Kessler, M., Escobar, F., & … del Coro Arizmendi, M. M. (2011). Global Warming, Elevational Ranges and the Vulnerability of Tropical Biota. Biological Conservation, 144(1), 548-557. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.10.010

Manning, Anita. (2011). USA Today.  http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-05-22-climate-change_N.htm.

Mousavi, M., Irish, J. L., Frey, A. E., Olivera, F., & Edge, B. L. (2011). Global warming and hurricanes: the potential impact of hurricane intensification and sea level rise on coastal flooding. Climatic Change, 104(3/4), 575-597. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9790-0

Muller-Landau, Helene C., Schipper, Jan, & Wright, Joseph. (2009). Conservation Biology. The Future of Tropical Species on a Warmer

Planet. Vol. 23 Issue 6, p1418-1426.

National Wildlife Federation. (2011). Effects on Wildlife and Habitat.  http://www.nwf.org/Global-Warming/Effects-on-Wildlife-and-Habitat.aspx.

Romm, Joe. (2011).  Climate Progress.  http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/04/munich-re-pielke-extreme-weather-damages-climate-change/.

Schmidt, C. W. (2010). A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(12), A536-A540. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Shepardson, D. P., Niyogi, D., Soyoung, C., & Charusombat, U. (2011). Students’ conceptions about the greenhouse effect, global warming, and climate change. Climatic Change, 104(3/4), 481-507. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9786-9

Westmoreland, Joshua. (2010). Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review. Global Warming and Originalism: The Role of the EPA in the Obama Administration.  Vol. 37 Issue 1, p225-256, 32p

Research Final Draft: Alaska is the Energy Frontier

Research Draft:  Alaska is the Energy Frontier

David Apperson

The current use of unsustainable resources to supply a growing energy demand will lead to an energy collapse unless better methods are developed to power our world.  According to Energy and the Environment by Robert Ristinen, in 2005 86% of the energy used in the U.S. came from nonrenewable resources including petroleum, coal, and natural gas (Ristinen, & Kraushaar, 2006)).  Energy must come from sources other than fossil fuels if humans are to survive but the only way demand can be met is if local communities utilize the strongest sources of clean energy in their area.  Renewable sources must become the backbone of our energy economy, not the decoration.  The only way to achieve this is to build large scale industrial facilities that can replace existing coal and gas turbine power plants.  Although renewable energy is often viewed on a small scale, systems in Alaska illustrate that the best use of sustainable resources is to redistribute load onto regional scale renewable sources because it will reduce the impact of existing fossil fuel sources, give communities energy independence and create a more stable energy system.

Humans are destroying the world.  One of the biggest ways we do this is by how we produce electricity.  Unfortunately for us and the Earth, the biggest and most abundant source for energy, the sun, remains relatively untapped compared to coal, oil and natural gas reserves.  The reason why this is still the case is because existing infrastructure is built around these fossil fuel technologies and the industries providing power via these sources have considerable inertia.  A major transformation must occur to slow the rate of climate change (Moselle, Padilla, & Schmalensee, 2010).  Fortunately the winds of change are blowing as America is starting to realize the size of the grave that is being dug.  Unfortunately, it will require a massive reinvestment into new infrastructure and renewable technologies, without energy subsidies, must be economically competitive with conventional fossil fuel sources if any momentum is to be gained (Skoglund, Leijon, Rehn, Lindahl, Waters, 2010).  The natural world is a chaotic display of energy flowing in raw forms that is only waiting to be harnessed; the problem to be solved is one of engineering.

Alaska is the energy frontier for America and has a fantastic opportunity to lead the charge towards an electric economy because of its many sustainable energy sources.  Adding to its uniqueness, Alaska has over 200 villages that are isolated from the main Railbelt power grid that supplies the larger municipalities (Drouilhet & Shirazi, 2002).  Because each of these communities still requires electricity to provide light and power, renewable sources are a prime selection to offset the high cost of diesel fuel, allowing Alaska to become a perfect proving ground for new technologies (Painuly, 2000).  “In addition, the high operations and maintenance (O&M) costs of diesel-generating stations contribute to electric  generation costs that average nearly $0.40/kWh and can be as high as $1.00/kWh” (Cotrell & Pratt, 2003). Although Alaska’s high latitude makes it less suitable for large solar plants, because of its large size it is privileged to have more coastline than the rest of the United States combined (Benson, 1998).  Where the land meets the sea, there is wind, where there is wind there is energy potential waiting to be tapped.  Traced back far enough, all wind is generated by the sun unequally heating the Earth, so wind energy is still tapping free solar energy, just less directly.  On top of fantastic wind resources, Alaska’s size and latitude again give the benefit of large glaciers and ice fields which provide long term supplies for hydroelectric projects.

Wind:  Nineteen Alaskan cities or villages have one or more grid tied utility scale wind turbines that supply a substantial portion of its energy needs.  A short list includes:  Shaktoolik, Kotzebue, Wales, St. Paul, Port Heiden, Selawik, Toksook Bay, Kasigluk and Kodiak (Fay, Keith, & Schworer, 2010).  The largest and least expensive system in terms of kilo-watts produced for every dollar invested is Kodiak’s Pillar Mountain project at $4800 per kW, the total project cost was $21.4 million (Fay, Keith, & Schworer, 2010).  The larger the project, the lower the cost per kilo-watt produced.  Any new project requires considerable startup investment regardless of size, so a few big systems are more valuable than many small ones.  The reason why all these communities are opting for expensive wind turbines is because diesel fuel is even more expensive.  For small communities that exist far from the main grid, the standby technology to produce electricity is diesel.  Large generators run continuously to provide these small outcroppings of civilization with usable power, and are also costing them massive amounts of money.  In the village of Toksook Bay three 100 kilo-Watt (kW) wind turbines will keep 52,000 gallons of fuel a year from being burned, saving approximately $200,000 a year depending on fuel prices (Fay, Keith, & Schworer, 2010).  These systems pay for themselves quickly.  Unfortunately the downside is that the wind does not always blow at the exact speed to maximally produce AC electricity at 120 volts and 60 Hz.  This problem is termed “penetration”, describing the ability of a wind system to offset the amount of diesel being burned.  To overcome this hurdle, considerable research is being done to store excess wind energy to keep penetration high even while the wind is not blowing fast enough.  One way this is achieved is by storing the surplus energy in large batteries.  “The high cost of operation of the diesel means that substantial savings can be realized by using battery storage to meet the  system performance requirements without  the diesel” (Miller, Zrebiec, Delmerico, Hunt and Achenbach, 1996).

The Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) are currently conducting research in this field.  NREL has been actively working on integrating wind and diesel in Alaska for over ten years. The village of Wales currently enjoys reduced energy costs from two 65 kW Atlantic Orient Corporation wind turbines installed in 2000, NREL had been designing and troubleshooting the system since 1995 (Drouilhet & Shirazi, 2002).  The integrated wind diesel system in Wales is quite robust and demonstrates a versatile and well designed system.  The original two turbines were built to offset the cost of three diesel generators and charge a 240 VDC battery pack composed of 200 individual 1.2 VDC cells (Drouilhet & Shirazi, 2002).  The system as a whole is capable of operating across 5 different modes depending on which components of the system are fully operational.  In the highest mode, all components are functioning normally but if a problem were to occur with one component (perhaps wind speed is too low, or the AC to DC rotary converter malfunctions and breaks) then the system automatically drops down to a lower mode which does not involve that component.  “The most critical task of the wind-diesel hybrid power system is to maintain constant voltage and frequency in all modes of operation” (Drouilhet & Shirazi, 2002).  Redundancy and resiliency in designs will be critical to successful operation of any renewable system in the harsh environments found in Alaska.  Another problem that plagues wind power comes when a power outage occurs when the main source of electricity goes down.  During a power outage, although the main source is down, the turbine is still operating and pumping electricity into the grid, leaving the power lines charged.  If the power from the wind turbine is not switched off immediately when the grid loses main power, it is possible for line men to enter a dangerous environment if they are working on or near energized lines that they think are dead.  This problem is successfully avoided with advanced switchgear that cuts power from the wind turbine once main power is lost, all properly designed systems include a switchgear.

Hydro:  Hydropower is not new to the state.  Juneau’s Annex Creek plant has been operating since 1915.  Many other hydro projects in Alaska provide clean energy for nearby communities.  Commissioned in 1991, the Bradley Lake Hydro Project near Homer taps alpine Bradley Lake via a 18,610 ft long tunnel that funnels water from the lake at 1,080 ft to a powerhouse at sea level, producing the cheapest energy along the Railbelt in Alaska (Johnson, Chow, Hickey, 2002).  The Railbelt power system in Alaska is unique in that it is electrically isolated from the larger power grids of the Lower 48 states.  Adding to this isolation, Bradley Lake is connected to the rest of the system by a single 115 kV transmission line which is occasionally interrupted and electrically islands the Kenai Peninsula and cuts off the rest of Alaska from Bradley Lake’s cheap power (Johnson, Chow, Hickey, 2002).  Eklutna Lake supplies 10-15% of Anchorage’s power and the city of Gustavus now receives all of its power from the new Falls Creek hydro project that opened in July of 2009, bringing electric costs down from 39 cents a kilo-watt-hour (kWh) to under 20 cents per kWh (Forgey, 2010).  Energy storage is not limited to electrical battery systems.  Because islanded systems are so susceptible to peaks and lows, in many situations wind power is inadequate to provide sustained voltage and frequency.  Hydro reservoirs also afford considerable energy storage which can be tapped to fill the gaps that wind power can leave but by having both technologies working together decreases the risk of production deficits (Brown, Pecas Lopes, & Matos, 2008) (Denault, Dupuis, &Couture-Cardinal, 2009).

Geothermal:  Alaska has more geothermal energy potential than any other state.  In interior Alaska, a few geothermal features exist which may be tapped for energy.  The importance of embracing all forms of renewable sources to create a flexible system is paramount (Blarke, & Lund, 2008).   Geothermal energy adds to the energy diversity of Alaska; however it is ranked lowest in terms of sustainable development relative to the other renewable technologies of wind, hydro, and photovoltaic (Evans, Strezov, & Evans, 2009).  The only hot spring which has been tapped is Chena Hot Springs, and all of the resort’s power comes from the hot springs.  The greatest challenge for geothermal power lies in the temperature of the hot springs.  With a moderate to low temperature of water seeping from the hot springs, it is more difficult to extract energy.  Chena Hot Springs Resort operates at the lowest temperature of any geothermal plant in the world (Chena Hot Springs).

Home systems will also play an important role in providing energy for specific communities.  While a community may perhaps be inadequate for a utility scale wind system, a single home perched high on a ridge line may have perfect access to high winds ripping across the ridge which could spin a small 5 or 10 ft turbine.  If every home had some kind of renewable system either tied into the grid or just dumping heat into the home, large utilities would have to produce less.  An even simpler option is just to build homes and buildings more energy efficiently.  If a certain building is extremely insulated it will naturally require less energy to heat, and large sun facing windows would reduce the need for artificial lighting as well as allow heating through solar radiation.

Economic feasibility is the issue that looms over every energy project.  Coal is cheap to mine and there is a large infrastructure built around it, which is why the technology has not been immediately replaced.  However, as coal-fired power plants age and replacement is in sight, renewable sources are primed to step in and fill the void.  The solution is not composed of a single technology.  The solution to the energy demand of now and the future will be a gracefully connected system of hydro, wind, geothermal, solar and improved building techniques.  Because of its size and unique environment, Alaska and its communities is a perfect proving ground for renewable energy technologies.  Clearly, the forty-ninth state is extremely active in the movement towards cheaper sustainable power.

Sources

Benson, Carl (1998-09-02).  “Alaska’s Size in Perspective”.  Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Retrieved 4-20-2011.

Blarke, M., & Lund, H. (2008). The effectiveness of storage and relocation options in renewable energy systems. Renewable Energy, 33(7), Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V4S-4R003KD-2&_user=6861066&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1746485421&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000055858&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=6861066&md5=6093e236e246f6de731acf0b312df780&searchtype=a

Brown, P., Pecas Lopes, J., and Matos, M. (2008). Optimazation of pumped storage capacity in an isolated power system with large renewable penetration. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 23(2), Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4476156

Cotrell, J., and Pratt, W. (2003). Modeling the Feasibility of Using Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engines in Remote Renewable Energy Systems.  Retrieved from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/34043.pdf

Chena Hot Springs, Geothermal Power.  [Web].  Retrieved from http://www.chenahotsprings.com/geothermal-power/,  Retrieved 4-210-2011.

Denault, M., Dupuis, D., & Couture-Cardinal, S. (2009). Complementarity of hydro and wind power: improving the risk profile of energy inflows. Energy Policy, 37(12), Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-4X49N29-6&_user=6861066&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1746545195&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000055858&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=6861066&md5=6916ec694cedaf88c9d38a6593a6288f&searchtype=a

Drouilhet, S., and Shirazi, M. (2002). Wales, Alaska High –Penetration Wind-diesel Hybrid Power System.  Retrieved from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/31755.pdf

Evans, A., Strezov, V., and Evans, T. (2009). Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies . Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(5), Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VMY-4SBHBJ7-5&_user=6861066&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1746535683&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000055858&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=6861066&md5=59d2fac653ac0852c88c797bf9d8243a&searchtype=a

Fay, G., Keith, K., and Schworer, T. (2010). Alaska isolated wind-diesel systems performance and economic analysis. Retrieved from http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/wind_analysis4_21_10.pdf

Forgey, Pat.  (2010).  Southeast Alaska City Celebrates Diesel Free Power.  Fairbanks Daily News Miner, Retrieved from http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/814222/article-Southest-Alaska-city-celebrates-diesel-free-power-,  Retrieved 4-20-2011.

Johnson, R., Chow, J., and Hickey, B. (2002) Pelton Turbine Deflector Control Designs for Bradley Lake Hydro Units.  Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1025427

Miller, N., Zrebiec, R., Delmerico, R., Hunt, G., and Achenbach, H., (1996).  A VRLA Battery Energy Storage System for Metlakatla, Alaska.  Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=485002&tag=1

Moselle, B., Padilla, J., & Schmalensee, R. (2010). Harnessing renewable energy in electric power systems. London, UK: Earthscan, Ltd.

Painuly, J. (2000). Barriers to renewable energy penetration; a framework for analysis. Renewable Energy, 24(1), Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V4S-42R0S25-6&_user=6861066&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2001&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1746466336&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000055858&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=6861066&md5=5bf069b04cd0452218ae625098eb6dca&searchtype=a

Ristinen, R., and Kraushaar, J.  (2006).  Energy and the Environment.  Hoboken, NJ:  John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Skoglund, A., Leijon, M., Rehn, A., Lindahl, M., & Waters, R. (2010). On the physics of power, energy and economics of renewable electric energy sources – part ii . Renewable Energy, 35(8), Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V4S-4XJF351-1&_user=6861066&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1746565479&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000055858&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=6861066&md5=d18c48a968b38a3e80b7ddc5aac622b0&searchtype=a

Research: Final Draft

Ever since it became fashionable to care about the planet, we have been focusing on reducing emissions, when we should be focusing on eliminating them. Even a small amount of greenhouse gases released by a very large number of people becomes a large amount of greenhouse gases. If we are going to “save” the planet we are going to have to return to a preindustrial level of greenhouse emissions. This means that technologies and measures which merely reduce our emissions will merely delay the destruction of our environment. While “solutions” such as alternative fuels may seem like a good idea because they require only minor modifications to existing technologies, they don’t bring us any closer to a real solution. That is because any meaningful solution would require a re-engineering of current technologies to eliminate the use of combusted fuels, or invention of new ones which don’t use them. The same thing applies to systems of filtration, recapturing gases, and cleaner burning. They all reduce emissions to various degrees, but none of them will eliminate them. Although reducing emissions may seem like a good idea, we should be trying to eliminate them through the use of non-combustion technologies because we need to eliminate emissions to stop global warming, even small emissions multiplied by billions of people is results in a substantial effect, and reducing emissions doesn’t bring us any closer to technologies which eliminate emissions.

According to Thomas (2009), “The transportation sector accounts for 28% of all US greenhouse gas emissions, 34% of all carbon dioxide emissions, 36%–78% of the main ingredients of urban air pollution, and 68% of all oil consumption”. Attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation in recent years have focused primarily on increasing fuel efficiency, emissions control technologies, and alternative fuels. Increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles has a relatively small effect on total greenhouse gas emissions. According to Schewel (2008) a 10% decrease in automobile weight can lead to a 5% to 7% increase in fuel efficiency (p. 2). However, there is a correlation between cost of fuel and annual distances driven. Schipper (2011) shows that a 10% increase in fuel prices leads to a 5% to 7% increase in fuel economy and annual distances driven increase as fuel prices decline. Schipper (2011) also states that driving distances increase as the GDP increases. From this one can infer that vehicle use will increase as improved fuel efficiency results in a lower cost of operation. This would result in a mitigating effect on any potential fuel savings. Simply improving the fuel efficiency of vehicles therefore will likely have a minor effect. It is also worth noting that the EPA (2006) reports that most technological improvements in the U.S. have been used to improve power and weight of vehicles, with only limited improvements to the fuel efficiency (p. 17). It is interesting to note that in a model produced by Thomas (2009), hydrogen-combustion hybrid electric vehicles, fuel cell electric vehicles, and battery electric vehicles all offered the greatest reductions to greenhouse gas emissions over a 100 year period. Thomas (2009) showed that scenarios involving these three types could potentially reduce emissions to an estimated .15 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions per year in the U.S. by 2100, compared to a best case scenario of .75 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per year for scenarios involving improving existing fossil fuel and biofuel hybrids. Note that this model assumed that some portion of electrical generation would still use fossil fuels (Thomas, 2009). Hydrogen-electric hybrids, hydrogen fuel cell-electric hybrids, and full electric vehicles produce no greenhouse gases during operation. The model was based on a gradual phasing in of various transportation technologies in different combinations (Thomas, 2009). Thomas further (2009) states that even if hydrogen is initially made from natural gas, it would result in an immediate 50% decrease in greenhouse gases emitted for fuel cell electric vehicles compared to burning gasoline in a regular car of similar size. Thomas (2009) further states, however, that further reductions would be required to reduce emissions to even 20% of 1990 levels by 2100.

Greenhouse gases in the industrial sector are controlled using carbon capture and storage. Olajire (2010) discussed the three primary carbon capture techniques: pre-combustion decarbonization, post-combustion, and oxy-fuel combustion. Post-combustion uses chemical solvents, membranes, or low temperature distillation to separate carbon dioxide and other pollutants from the flue gas after combustion of the fuel. Post-combustion carbon capture typically requires large amounts of energy to regeneration the solvents once they have been used. Pre-combustion uses air and steam to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide from carbon-based fuels. The carbon dioxide is then separated from the hydrogen and captured, and the hydrogen is used for fuel. Pre-combustion carbon capture has lower energy requirements than post-combustion, does not require the use of chemical solvents, and is more efficient at capturing carbon dioxide. Oxyfuel combustion is a post-combustion technique which uses pure oxygen in the combustion process. According to Olajire (2010) this creates a high concentration of carbon dioxide in the flue gas, which simplifies the separation and capture of the carbon dioxide and eliminates NO_x emissions. Oxyfuel combustion does not require the use of chemical solvents, but has a large energy cost and oxygen is difficult to aquire. The carbon dioxide separation techniques used to collect carbon dioxide from the gas stream include absorption, adsorption, membranes, and cryogenics. In chemical absorption a solvent is used to absorb carbon dioxidefrom the gas stream, and then heat is applied to separate the carbon dioxidefrom the other gases and create a pure carbon dioxidestream. According to Olajire (2010), Amine absorbtion is capable of filtering carbon dioxidewith 98% efficiency. Adsorption passes a gas through a solid material, and the desired pollutants attach themselves to its surface. Cryogenic methods involve cooling the carbon dioxide until it liquifies, separating it from the gas stream. Membrane methods rely on semi-permeable membranes to filter out the desired gases. Note that Olajire (2010) indicates that because of the relatively small quantities of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases, emission reduction efforts are primarily concerned with the capture of carbon dioxide.

Because of the widespread infrastructure for combustion produced power, alternative fuel sources are a popular target for reducing green house gas emissions. The types of alternative fuels include biomass, organic oils, biofuels, and hydrogen. Of these, hydrogen is the cleanest. Hydrogen fuel cells are a method of producing power without combustion. They operate by combining oxygen and hydrogen to produce electricity and water. Busby and Altork (2010) claim that more than 99% of the by product from hydrogen fuel cells is heat and clean water, and no greenhouse gases are produced (p. 24). This provides the potential to either generate more power from the steam, or to use it to provide a clean water source. Busby and Altork (2010) also maintain that hydrogen can be produced almost anywhere on the planet with few restrictions (p. 24). Yet, despite the obvious benefits, fuel cells have been slow to evolve. According to Busby and Altork (2010) the first hydrogen fuel cell was created in 1838, but the first modern fuel cell was not created until 1989, and they are only now becoming viable technologies (pp. 22 – 23). Presently there is little infrastructure in place for hydrogen production or use as a fuel source. Busby and Altork (2010) believe that it will take about 40 years to build a hydrogen fuel infrastructure (p. 26). Adapting existing technologies is therefore generally preferred. Biomass, biofuels, and organic oils are ideal for this purpose. Biomass is raw plant matter including wood. Biomass can be converted to energy either by burning, or by a process called gasification. It can also be converted to other fuels such as biomass oil or methanol (Yoshida et al., 2003, p. 258). Biomass oils can be used for heating, and methanol can be used to produce heat, electricity or hydrogen (Yoshida et al., 2003, p. 258). Organic oils are oils made from plants such as soybean or peanut oil. They are popular for diesel modifications since individuals can collect leftover frying oil from restaurants. Biofuels are gasoline and diesel fuels derived from plant matter. The plant matter has to undergo a costly and energy intensive process to be turned into biofuel, but it can be used in gasoline or diesel engines. Thomas (2009) states that max biofuel production in the U.S. could be anywhere from 45 to 140 billion gallons per year. Thomas (2009) also states that water resources may become an issue with increased biofuel production. The emissions savings from the use of plant derived fuels is questionable. The argument is that the emissions released from combusting these fuels came from the atmosphere and will eventually be reabsorbed by the next generation of plants, creating a closed loop. It is important to keep in mind that this process only works if we are able to grow as much fuel as we use in a given year. In reality, it takes far longer to grow a tree than to burn one, resulting in a short term inundation of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and a long term recovery period.

In order to better understand the effect of global emissions, it is necessary to understand the biocapacity of the Earth. Biocapacity is the volume of pollutants which a system is able to process. The major contributers to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor . Due to the relative lack of information on nitrous oxide and ozone sources and sinks, they will not be discussed here. Also, the amount of water vapor in the air is not directly affected by human activity and will not be covered here. It will be discussed with feedback loops, however. According to Jansson, Wullschleger, Kalluri, and Tuskan (2010), a total of 3 gigatons of carbon is sequestered annually by terrestrial systems (p. 685). Jansson et al. (2010) also estimated that 2 gigatons is sequestered annually by oceanic systems (p. 685). This provides a total of almost 16.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide sequestered annually world wide. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can remain there for hundreds of years. Living plants and other organisms provide only short term sequestration of carbon dioxide. Once the plant or organism dies, the carbon dioxide will be released back into the atmosphere. Thus, living organisms mostly represent a static storage of carbon. If the number of plants increases, then more carbon will come out of the air, and if the number decrease, more carbon will make it into the air. Because of this, they can change the short term levels of carbon dioxide, but will not greatly affect the long term levels. The soil, on the other hand, is capable of long term storage of carbon dioxide. Jansson et al. (2010) state that inorganic carbon stored in the soil may remain there for millennia (p. 687). This capacity for soil to store carbon for long periods represents an effective way to reduce total atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.Plants transfer some of the carbon dioxide in the air to the soil through their roots. Because of this, and their potential to moderate short term carbon dioxide levels, plants are instrumental in managing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. According to Jansson et al. (2010) estimates for the total capacity for organic carbon sequestration in soil ranges from 44 to 537 gigatons of carbon (p. 687). Jansson et al. (2010) believe that 80 to 130 gigatons of organic carbon may be sequestered in the soil over a 100 year period through improved land management practices (p. 687). Methane exists in much smaller quantities than carbon dioxide, but it is a powerful greenhouse gas. According to an article in the NY times (2009) methane is 33 times more effective at trapping greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide (Henderson, np). Because of this, methane is also an important factor in global warming. According to Reay (2003), about 540 million tons per year is broken down by methane oxidation in the atmosphere (p. 16). Reay (2003) also states that about 30 million tons are removed by bacteria in the soil , and chemical reactions with chlorine in the atmosphere and the oceans has a relatively minor effect (p. 16). The hydroxyl radical (OH) is the primary contributor to the breakdown of methane and other pollutants in the atmosphere, such as carbon monoxide (Reay, 2003, p. 16). An increase in any of these pollutants would therefore increase the effects from the others by reducing the OH levels, and thus require an extended time to remove the pollutants from the atmosphere. A longer life span in the atmosphere means more time for pollutants to accumulate. Additionally, hydrogen oxides and ozone are usually consumed in the reactions which break down methane (Reay, 2003, p. 16).

Schmidt (2010) points out that virtually all scientists agree that there has been a warming trend since the beginning of the industrial era (p. 538). It would seem, then that human activities since the beginning of the industrial era are responsible for global warming. One of the characteristics of the industrial era was the widespread use of fossil fuels as a source of energy. Fossil fuels release large amounts of greenhouse gases when burned, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Furthermore, the warming trend has been accelerating in recent years (needs support). Klimenko, Tereshin, and Mikushina (2009) show an increasing consumption of fossil fuels since the middle of the 20^th century (p. 2471). There has also been an increase in anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. According to Princiotta (2009) approximately 25 billion tons of carbon dioxide were emitted in 2004, up from 18 billion tons in 1980 (p. 1195). Furthermore, the growth rate of emissions is increasing. Princiotta (2009) shows that there has been an average annual growth rate of 1.4% since 1990, but 3.5% since 2000 (pp. 1194-1195). Princiotta (2009) also states that emissions are projected to reach almost 60 billion tons per year by 2050 (p. 1197). Carbon dioxide is the most prominent greenhouse gas, and has the largest effect on global warming. Carbon dioxide per unit volume has the weakest effect on global warming of all the identified greenhouse gases, with a greenhouse warming potential (GWP) of 1. However, due to the much larger quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, it is the most important factor of global warming today. Most scientist agree that just under 50% percent of global warming is the result of Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere (Schmidt, 2010, p. 538). Carbon is found in almost every living creature and plant, as well as their remains. The primary method of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is through photosequestration by plants (Jansson, 2010, p. 685). As a result, plants and organisms contain a sizable portion of global carbon reserves. According to Jansson et al. (2010) they contain around 670 gigatons of carbon, compared to 760 gigatons of carbon existing in the air (p. 685). Because of this, there are a great many sources of carbon dioxide. When a plant or animal dies, its remains release carbon dioxide as they decay. Similarly, when they are burned they release carbon dioxide among other pollutants. As a plant grows, it takes in carbon from the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide. Much of this is returned to the atmosphere, but the remaining carbon is stored in the plant material. According to Jansson et al. (2010), of the 123 gigatons of carbon which are sequestered annually, 113 are returned to the atmosphere through plant and microbial respiration (p. 685). During the combustion process, all of the carbon stored in the plant over its lifetime is released. Therefore, forest fires can represent a significant factor in carbon dioxide emissions because the carbon content is released rapidly, and the regrowth of new trees to reclaim it takes many years. Jansson et al. (2010) estimate that 90% of the world’s terrestrial carbon is stored in forest ecosystems (p. 687). Human use of wood for fuel also represents a significant contribution of carbon dioxide. Because of the slow growth rate of trees, it would take many years to re-sequester the carbon emitted. Meanwhile, carbon dioxide would be building up in the atmosphere. Deforestation can also be a significant source of carbon dioxide emissions through both the decay of biomass, and the loss of trees which act as a carbon sink. According to a study by Powlson (2011), the estimated carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation are 25% of that from fossil fuel use. Human and animal respiration also contributes carbon dioxide. Ocean-atmosphere exchange may contribute carbon dioxide (need information). Volcanic emissions represent a small source of carbon dioxide (need information). Fossil fuel use is by far the worst contributor to carbon dioxide emissions. Since fossil fuels represent carbon which has been removed from the natural cycle, any fossil fuels we burn represent a net increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Not only does it represent an addition of carbon dioxide beyond the natural balance, but it is responsible for the greatest share of carbon dioxide emissions globally. According to Olajire (2010), fossil fuel power plants produce more than a third of global carbon dioxide emissions. In the same article, Olajire (2010) states that a 1000MW power plant produces between 6 and 8 million tons of carbon dioxide every year when powered with coal, between 4 and 6 million tons when powered with oil, and between 3 and 4 million tons when powered with natural gas. A report published be the IEA (2009) shows that the transportation sector accounts for 23% global carbon dioxide emissions from energy (p. 29). The same report by the IEA (2009) claims that 95% of transportation energy comes from fossil fuels (p. 48). There are additional emissions from fossil fuel uses not related to the production of energy. This excess carbon will eventually be returned to the soil, but it is a very slow process. Archer et al (2009) believe that effects from carbon dioxide in our atmosphere could persist for tens of thousands of years (p. 131). Carbon dioxide may also be release by chemical reactions during industrial process not related to the combustion of fossil fuels. Describe the amount of carbon dioxide released by industrial processes.

After carbon dioxide, methane is the second most important contributer to global warming. Conversion of forests to agricultural land increases the levels of methane in the air by reducing the ability of the soil to act as a methane sink. This is because conversion to agricultural land increases the nitrogen levels in the soil, and high nitrogen levels inhibit methane oxidation. Methane comes from livestock and other animals. One cow can produce a volume of methane which would require 2.5 acres of methanotrophic bacteria to remove (needs support). Rice produces a significant amount of methane (more info). Waste water treatment. Landfills. Combustion of plant matter. Natural gas distribution. Wetlands. Methanogens. Plants? Permafrost (more info). Methane Clathrates may be a source of global warming from a feedback loop. If the temperature of water rises enough, then the methane trapped in the sediments would be released into the atmosphere (more info)

Over the history of the planet, levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have fluctuated between x and y (need information). The low end of the scale marks glacial periods, and the upper end marks interglacial periods (needs support). This shows that relatively small changes in the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide can have a large effect. Our current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are x (needs info). At the beginning of the industrial revolution it was x (need info). Or almost x times the largest concentration at any preindustrial point in measured history. Also, there has been a trend of increasing emissions which continues today (more info).

Over the history of the planet, levels of atmospheric methane have also been relatively steady. An article by Loulergue et al. (2008) states that atmospheric methane levels have varied between 350 and 800 parts per billion over the last 650,000 years. (p. 383). As with carbon dioxide, the lowest levels coincided with glacial periods in our history, and the highest levels coincided with interglacial periods (Loulergue, 2008, p. 383). There seems to be an obvious correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane levels and global temperature. According to Loulergue et al. (2008) Present day levels of atmospheric methane have been measured at 1770 parts per billion, which is over twice the highest preindustrial concentration (p. 383). This has been steadily rising since the beginning of the industrial era, when it was only x (need info). Today the annual emissions of methane into the atmosphere are x (need info).

One of the most dangerous and insidious aspects of global warming is the feedback loop. It is widely considered that human activity is solely responsible for global warming. To a degree, this is true. However, to some degree we are merely instigators. This is because global temperature is regulated by extremely complicated interactions in the natural world. When increased temperatures change the balance in some ecological system, causing it to either release more greenhouse gases or to no longer remove them, then global warming will increase as a result. This is what is known as a feedback loop. As these even higher temperatures further upset ecological balances, it will eventually result in a runaway global warming process wherein humans no longer have control.

One of these feedback loops results from massive stores of methane frozen in the arctic permafrost (needs support). As temperatures rise and the permafrost begins to melt, the methane is released into the atmosphere. Further warming created by the extra methane causes further melting of the permafrost and so forth. There is estimated to be X amount of methane stored in the arctic permafrost (more info). The impact on global warming if all this methane were to be released would be (more info).

Another feedback loop results from deforestation. As photo sequestration by trees is the primary means of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the loss of forest acreage results in decreased removal of carbon dioxide. Humans account for one source of deforestation, but global warming can cause it as well (needs support). The current rate of temperature change can alter the climates around the world artificially fast. The native species may be unable to adapt so quickly and will die out, resulting in a loss of forest. Warmer temperatures may also result in reduced soil moisture leading to an increase in forest fires. The reduced forest acreage will then contribute to increased warming.

Water vapor is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases. With a GWP of x, it is x times more effective than carbon dioxide in trapping the sun’s heat (need info). Directly, human activities cannot put more water vapor into the air, so releasing water vapor by any means would have no effect on global warming. This is because the air can only hold a specific amount of water vapor. The volume of water vapor that can be stored in the air is directly related to the air temperature, however. As the temperatures increase, the air will be able to hold more water vapor. The high GWP of water vapor makes it one of the more dangerous feedback loops. (support this paragraph)

Receding ice cover represents another feedback loop. As the ice on the surface melts, less sunlight is reflected back into space. More of the surface is therefore warmed by the sun resulting in a higher temperature which results in further recession of ice.

Ocean absorption of carbon dioxide decreases as warmer water temperatures halt the exchange of carbon dioxide between surface waters and deeper waters.

Methane clathrates in the ocean sediment layer are a potential feedback. These are solid methane compounds which are only stable under high pressure and low temperatures. As higher temperatures penetrate the deeper ocean waters, the methane in these compounds may be released.

References

Archer D., Eby M., Brovkin V., Ridgwell A., Cao L., Mikolajewicz U., Caldeira K., Matsumoto K., Munhoven G., Montenegro A., and Tokos K. (2009). Atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel carbon dioxide. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 37, 117–134. doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206

 Busby, J. R., & Altork, L. N. (2010). Hydrogen fuel cells: Part of the solution. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 70(2), 22-27.

 EPA (2006). Greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. transportation sector, 1990-2003. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. EPA420-R-06-003

 IEA (2009). Transport, energy and CO₂: Moving toward sustainability. Paris, France: Jouve.

 Jansson, C., Wullschleger, S. D., Kalluri, U. C., & Tuskan, G. A. (2010) Phytosequestration: carbon biosequestration by plants and the prospects of genetic engineering. Bioscience, 60, 685-696. doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.9.6

 Klimenko, V. V., Tereshin, A. G., & Mikushina, O. V. (2009). Globalenergy and climate of the planet in the XXI century in the context of historical trends. Russian Journal of General Chemistry, 79, 2469-2476. doi:10.1134/S1070363209110358

 Loulergue, L., Schilt, A., Spahni, R., Masson-Delmotte, V., Blunier, T., Lemieux, B., . . . Chappellaz, J. (2008). Orbital and millennial-scale features of atmospheric CH₄ over the past 800,000 years. Nature, 453, 383-386. doi:10.1038/nature06950

 Olajire, A. A. (2010). CO₂ capture and separation technologies for end-of-pipe applications – A review. Energy, 35, 2610-2628. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2010.02.030

 Powlson, D. S., Whitmore, A. P., & Goulding, K. W. T. (2011). Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: A critical re-examination to identify the true and the false. European Journal of Soil Science, 62, 42-55. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01342.x

Princiotta, F. (2009). Global climate change and the mitigation challenge. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 59, 1194-1211. doi:10.3155/1047-3289.59.10.1194

 Reay, D. S. (2003). Sinking methane. Biologist, 50(1), 15-19.

 Schäfer, A., Heywood, J. B., & Weiss, M. A. (2006). Future fuel cell and internal combustion engine automobile technologies: A 25-year life cycle and fleet impact assessment. Energy, 31, 1728- 1751. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2005.09.011

Schewel, L. (2008). Triple safety: Lightweighting automobiles to improve occupant, highway, and global safety. In SAE World Congress and Exhibition, 2008-01-1282. Detroit, MI: SAE.

Schipper, L. (2011). Automobile use, fuel economy and CO₂ emissions in industrialized countries: Encouraging trends through 2008? Transport Policy, 18, 358-372. doi:10.1016 /j.tranpol.2010.10.011

 Schmidt, C. W. (2010). A closer look at climate change skepticism. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118, A536-A540.

 Thomas, C. E. S. (2009). Transportation options in a carbon-constrained world: Hybrids, plug-in hybrids, biofuels, fuel cell electric vehicles, and battery electric vehicles. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 34, 9279-9296. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.09.058

 Yoshida, Y., Dowaki, K., Matsumura, Y., Matsuhashi, R., Li, D., Ishitani, H., & Komiyama, H. (2003). Comprehensive comparison of efficiency and CO₂ emissions between biomass energy conversion technologies—Position of supercritical water gasification in biomass technologies. Biomass & Bioenergy, 25, 257 – 272. doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00016-3

Research Final Draft: Water Pollution: Humans Contributing to Their Own Downfall

Water pollution is an aspect of pollution that commonly goes under the radar; however, it is a huge aspect of pollution that has serious detrimental effects and must be handled effectively and quickly in order to obtain a clean and healthy environment. Water covers over 70% of the earth and is something we as human species need to survive. Along with our bodies’ need for water, it also houses all of our marine life, which is commonly a food source for humans. The toxins and bacteria that can enter the food chain raise the possibility of the potential human health problems that can arise from water pollution. It is in our best interest to focus on the causes of water pollution and promote ways to decrease it. Although human species’ survival is dependent upon water, humans actually are one of the main causes of water pollution because humans take part in marine dumping, industrial waste, and mining.

Prior to examining the multiple ways humans contribute to water pollution, it is first critical to understand how water pollution is classified. Sources of water pollution have been separated into two groups: point and non-point sources. Point sources, such as sewage, underground mines, oil wells and tankers, agriculture, and various factories are some sources that discharge pollutants at specific locations in the surface water through pipelines or sewers. As point sources can be traced to a single site of discharge, non-point sources cannot. Non-point sources are ultimately harder to control and trace because they are sources such as traffic pollution and pollutants that use groundwater as their entryway into bodies of water (“Water Treatment Solutions,” 2009).

Through close analysis, it is clear that humans are lead contributors to water pollution. Being a main cause, human activities are ultimately leading to their own downfall by promoting the unhealthy environment that has negative effects for them and the world around them. The Clean Water Act, passed in 1972, has unfortunately not been followed as closely as planned, ultimately resulting in the increase in water pollution today. Many states are failing to use the Clean Water Act, an act that was aimed to protect people and wildlife from water pollution. There has been an annual increase in the amount of illness due to drinking contaminated water, multiple beaches have been closed, and many other restrictions have been put in place due to the negative human influence on water pollution, their failure to abide by the Clean Water Act, and ultimately their failure to protect themselves and the world around them (“Most States,” 2000, p. 6). Not only in the United States, but in many developing countries water pollution is a very large issue. Developing countries have very poor practice when it comes to preventing discharges from entering the water in a variety of ways. In the United States and many other countries, such poor practices have lead to the degrading quality of fresh water and therefore limiting its availability to supply for human needs (Adedeji, 2009, p. 643).

One of the main contributors of water pollution by humans comes from the marine transport sector. Ships today can carry near 5,000 passengers, some ships even more, and ultimately these ships are carrying majority of the waste that is dumped into the ocean. These ships have the ability to generate at least 11 million gallons of waste water daily. Annually, these ships have been estimated to produce and emit up to 1.6 million metric tons of waste. These ships are often referred to as “floating cities,” and these floating cities ultimately produce majority of the waste found in the oceans (Katsioloudis, 2010, p. 6).

In the marine sector, one of the most common forms of waste that is emitted into the ocean is sewage. Sewage is considered by many to actually be the most universal form of marine pollution (Katsioloudis, 2010, p. 9). Sewage being emitted into the water introduces a number of disease-causing microorganisms in the water. The resulting diseases and illnesses often find their way back to the humans who emitted the pollution into the water initially. Along with most sea life, some of the most common sea foods found in many markets today, such as oysters, clams, and mussels are also greatly effected by sewage pollution in the water. The bacteria and viruses emitted into the water are ultimately concentrated by the shellfish when they feed and can lead to human consumption of the bacteria or viruses. This is only a few of the many ways that humans come in contact with bacteria and other viruses that are generated due to water pollution (Katsioloudis, 2010, p. 7).

Along with sewage, solid wastes play a critical part in water pollution from the marine transport sector. Katsioloudis (2010) states that “majority of solid waste generated on cruise ships includes large volumes of plastic, paper, wood, cardboard, food waste, cans, and glass” (p. 7). Although most commonly these forms of solid waste are incinerated on board and then disposed of into the water in ash form, it has also been known that many of these solid waste are simply thrown overboard prior to being incinerated. The floating debris have serious detrimental effects on a variety of marine animals. If the marine life ingest the debris, especially the plastic debris, the resulting internal entanglement can be fatal. In a study where they were investigating the death of marine life, they found multiple forms of human debris that had been discarded by humans into the ocean inside or wrapped around the dead marine life (Parker, 2011, p. 115). Katsioloudis (2010) elaborates on the fact that the Coast Guard estimates that “more than one million birds and 100,000 marine mammals die each year from eating or getting entangled in plastic debris” (p. 7). Estimations such as these are often found to be underestimated, which means more marine life could actually be effected by human actions and the dumping of sewage and solid wastes (Sullivan, 2010, p. 1772).

Industrial waste is another top running contributor to water pollution. Our nation is clearly an industrial one and with that comes a large amount of waste that ultimately finds its way into the environment. Most of these wastes that enter the environment and contribute to most of the water pollution are hazardous, while some still have unknown human health effects and could ultimately be more harmful than those we are already aware of (Tarr, 1985, p. 1060). The increase of industrial wastes being emitted into waterways can ultimately lead to sever deterioration of certain waterways or areas and can ultimately result in a loss of use for those areas (Effler, 2009, p. 98).

Industrial wastes are also known to emit asbestos, which is now banned in 52 countries. All forms of asbestos are banned in those countries, and what seemed to be safer products had replaced many materials that were once made with asbestos. Although asbestos is banned, many countries are still using it illegally. With the illegal use, asbestos is still finding its way into the water and polluting it. Unfortunately, one of the most common ways asbestos is still polluting water is mainly from industrial waste. Asbestosis and various forms of cancer can result from the polluted water and can only be stopped if critical measures are taken to stop industrial wastes and its contribution to water pollution (LaDou, 2010, p. 900).

Although asbestos generally goes under the radar as an industrial waste due to its illegal use, oil is a common industrial waste that has been a public issue for a number of years. Obviously, the public health can be greatly effected from oil spills as it clearly creates unhealthful water. When oil is exposed to water, it does not dissolve. The result is a thick oily layer covering the surface of the water. The oily layer alone has detrimental effects on the marine life inhabiting that area of water. Oil spills can destroy marine life and have very negative effects for those it does not destroy (Klemas, 2010, p. 790). Katsioloudis (2010) states that oil enters the marine environment “from land runoff, natural seeps, vessels, pipelines, and offshore exploration and production platforms” (p. 7). Once again, the marine transport sector is known to contribute to high percentages of accidental spills worldwide. Although there have been some plans created to help prevent oil spills, they are still occurring and often those at fault for them are humans (Abdul-Wahab, 2009, p. 502). The biological breakdown of petroleum products from these oil spills can create great threats to human health if ingested due to a variety of toxic compounds in the oil and their impact on internal organs. This also ultimately harms and can be fatal to many fish and wildlife. Not only are the marine life inhabiting the waters effected, but many other wildlife are effected, such as seabirds. The layer the oil creates on the ocean surface can be harmful to the seabirds that spend time there (Katsioloudis, 2010, p. 8). The effect of oil from industrial waste effects humans, the marine life, and wildlife and is a lead contributor in water contamination by humans. Due to its universal effect, industrial wastes should be a huge concern for many. It is critical for solutions to be discovered to decrease industrial wastes and these solutions need to be put into action immediately.

Along with the marine transport sector and the variety of industrial wastes, mining is also a main contributor to water pollution. Mining has been known for years to be a top contributor to water pollution. Most practices of mining has been recorded to have very detrimental effects on the environment and is quite far from a sustainable practice (Amezaga, 2011, p. 22). The process of mining includes a wide variety of large metals. Many of these metals eventually become waste that enters many waterways. Heavy metals are amongst some of the most toxic and environmentally dangerous pollutants. With today’s industrial world and high demands, heavy metal pollution has become an increasing problem (Rai, 2010, p. 226). A main element commonly known to be a waste product of mining is cyanide. Cyanide has been reported to contribute to malign tumor formations, and the heavy metal and cyanide produced from mining waste showed to be some of the risk factors. Heavy metal and cyanide are known to have mutagen effects, and they are potential threats to human health (Ivanova, 2005, p. 102). With such high health risks, it is crucial to promote solutions to decrease contamination of water with such pollutants.

Mine wastes are dumped in a variety of locations; however, regardless of where they are dumped, they have detrimental effects on marine life and human health due to the pollution of the water. Moran (2009) states that these dumping effects have produced “documented impacts to marine life and alleged impacts to humans” (p. 32). Mining waste is produced due to the fact that most of the rock that is removed and processed ultimately ends as waste. The waste is supposed to be stored and managed; however, many companies find it easier to get rid of the waste elsewhere in order to eliminate their responsibility with it. Processed rocks and their components generally include almost every element known to humans. Some of the most common pollutants are arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, and uranium. Many other chemicals are required and critical to the actual processing of the metal ores. Most of these elements and chemicals are all known to be individually toxic to humans and marine organisms, and they ultimately intoxicate and contaminate our water (Moran, 2009, p. 33).

The marine transport sector, industrial wastes, and mining wastes are a few of the many ways humans contribute to water pollution, there are numerous other ways humans contribute to water pollution daily. Not only does the water pollution ultimately effect us and our health, it also can have detrimental effects for our environment, the marine life, and the wildlife inhabiting it. The food chain plays a huge role in water pollution, as many humans ultimately rely on water and other wildlife or marine life as sources for food. Human bodies need water to survive, and many humans prefer to eat wildlife or marine life as food to get nutrients essential to our survival. Although human survival is based upon those needs, humans are unfortunately very irresponsible in their practices and are ultimately leading to their own demise. Humans are one of the main contributors to water pollution. For the health of humans and the cleanliness of our environment, it would be wise to acknowledge this fact and take the initiative to begin creating solutions to the problems rather than continuing to create the problems themselves.

Abdul-Wahab, S. A., Al-Mammari, K. H., Al-Kindi, N. K., & Al-Sawafi, A. R. (2009). Smart Ship System: Protection of the Marine Environment. Environmental Engineering Science, 26, 501-508. doi:10.1089/ees.2008.0017

Adedeji, A. A., & Ako, R. T. (2009). Towards achieving the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals: The imperative of reforming water pollution control and waste management laws in Nigeria. Desalination, 248, 642-649. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2008.05.114

Amezaga, J. M., Rotting, T. S., Younger, P. L., Nairn, R. W., Noles, A., Oyarzun, R., & Quintanilla, J. (2011). A Rich Vein? Mining and the Pursuit of Sustainability. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(1), 21-26. doi:10.1021/es101430e

Effler, S. W., Owens, E. M., Matthews, D. A., O’Donnell, S. M., & Hassett, J. M. (2009). Effects of Discharge of Spent Cooling Water from an Oligotrophic Lake to a Polluted Eutrophic Lake. Journal of Water Resources Planning & Management, 135(2), 96-106. doi:10.1061/ (ASCE)0733-9496(2009)135:2(96)

Ivanova, E., Staikova, T. A., & Velcheva, I. (2005). Cytogenetic testing of heavy metal and cyanide contaminated river waters in a mining region of Southwest Bulgaria. Journal of Cell & Molecular Biology, 4(2), 99-106. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Katsioloudis, P. J. (2010). Green Ships: Keeping Oceans Blue. Technology Teacher, 69(5), 5-9. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Klemas, V. (2010). Tracking Oil Slicks and Predicting their Trajectories Using Remote Sensors and Models: Case Studies of the Sea Princess and Deepwater Horizon Oil Spills. Journal of Coastal Research, 26, 789-797. doi:10.2112/10A-00012.1

LaDou, J., Castleman, B., Frank, A., Gochfeld, M., Greenberg, M., Huff, J., & Watterson, A. (2010). The Case for a Global Ban on Asbestos. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118, 897-901. doi:10.1289/ehp.100228

Moran, R., Reichelt-Brushett, A., & Young, R. (2009). Out of sight, Out of Mine: Ocean Dumping of Mine Wastes. World Watch, 22(2), 30-34. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Most States Ignore Leading Causes Of Water Pollution, NWF Finds. (2000). International Wildlife, 30(4), 6. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Parker, L. (2011). Oceans of Rubbish. Australian Geographic, (101), 114-118. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Rai, P. (2010). Heavy Metal Pollution in Lentic Ecosystem of Sub-Tropical Industrial Region and its Phytoremediation. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 12, 226-242. doi:10.1080/15226510903563843

Sullivan, C., Tyrer, M., Cheeseman, C. R., & Graham, N. D. (2010). Disposal of water treatment wastes containing arsenic — A review. Science of the Total Environment, 408, 1770-1778. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.01.010

Tarr, J. A. (1985). Industrial Wastes and Public Health: Some Historical Notes, Part I, 1876-1932. American Journal of Public Health, 75, 1059-1067. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Water Treatment Solutions (2009). Water pollution FAQ Frequently Asked Question. Retrieved from http://www.lenntech.com/water-pollution-faq.htm

Research Final Draft: Polar Bears: Melting Away from Under their Paws

Polar bears (Ursus Maritimus), 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 (Courtland, 2008).  Although they are not at high risk, environmental problems and humans may put polar bears on the endangered species list because of the effects of global warming, pollution, and human activities.

Global warming is the leading problem to polar bears’ extinction.  Global warming is the increasing temperatures caused by trapped heat 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 (Deroacher, A.E., 2010). 
  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, p. 1).  
Polar bears love the cold and the ice.  They simply 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 (Evans, T.J., Gleason, J.S., Miller, S., Proffitt, K., Rode, K.D., Schliebe, S., & Wilder, J., 2008).

Their primary diet is the ringed seal.  The ringed seal also reside near ice caps.  When temperatures increase and ice caps melt away, seals migrate to find a colder location, which leaves less food for polar bears to hunt (Rosing-Asvid, A., 2006).  The declining of food decreases reproduction of polar bear cubs. Mother polar bears rely on food in order to keep their cubs alive.  When ice breaks up before summer, seals disappear into the waters.  A mother polar bear leaves her cubs at their den, and she desperately races to the seals’ 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.  However, 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). Cannibalism is also another reason why there is a decrease of polar bears.  Biologists believe that because of the lack of ice and food, polar bears consume inefficient amount of nutrients, which causes them to eat other polar bear or other bear species (Amstrup, S.C., Perham, C., Smith, T.S., Stirling, I., & Thiemann, G.W., 2006).  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.  Polar 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 longer open water periods and tremendous long distance swimming that eventually made them too exhausted to reach solid ice (Monnet, C. & Gleason, J.S., 2006). 
Since ice caps are melting faster than previous years, their chance of finding solid ice to float on are very slim (Amstrup, S.C., Douglas, D.C., & Fischbach, A.S., 2007).  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).  Although polar bears love water as much as they love ice, the water they swim in affects them as well.

Water pollution poses another threat to polar bears by affecting their health and habitat in many ways.  Pollution results from oil spills, toxic wastes, and dumping of other harmful materials.  Being at the top of the food chain, polar bears are exposed to various types of pollutants.  Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are detected in many dangerous substances such as heat resistant chemicals, industrial by-products, and pesticides.  Even though these substances are rarely 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).  There also have been reports of high concentration of mercury in polar bears.  Mercury comes from the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas.  When fuels are released into the air and drifts over the ocean, it eventually falls.  The mercury is then digested and contaminates marine life animals, especially those who are a part of the polar bear’s food chain (Cardona-Marek, T., Knott, K.K., Meyer, B.E., & O’Hara, T., 2009).  Oil spill is also a type of pollution that harms polar bears.  If polar bears contain a certain amount of oil on their fur, it can possibly poison and kill them through grooming.  When a polar bear’s fur comes in contact with oil, it reduces its 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).  Environmentalists are still facing the consequences of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sounds, Alaska.  11-million gallons of crude oil were 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 was stopped a few days after, there is no effective end date to when the affected areas 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 primarily polluted through their food chain.  Chemicals are transported to the arctic from the south by either wind or water.  The chemicals then affect the polar bears’ food chain: water, algae, shrimp, cod, and ringed seals.  Pollution harms polar bears’ reproductive and immune systems. When their hormones are affected by pollution, it may possibly obstruct their reproduction and growth.  It also weakens their immune systems, making polar bears vulnerable to diseases or parasites (Sonne, 2010).  Currently, there is no proven effective method for cleaning or maintaining an oil spill in arctic waters (“Oil,” n.d).  All of these mentioned environmental problems don’t just come out of nowhere; humans initiate them.

Although polar bears are already threatened by environmental disasters, they are also faced with manmade disasters.  Transportation, power plants, oil drilling, and gas institutions are manmade establishments that contribute to the environmental problems mentioned before such as global warming and pollution.  These establishments may benefit human’s way of life, but it’s a disadvantage to polar bears and their habitats.  On top of all these problems, humans are adding to polar bears’ declining numbers by hunting them.  Hunting polar bears is 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” (Taylor, 2009, para. 6), that allows non-natives to hunt them as a sport.  Native arctic populations in the United States, 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 for hunting polar bears as a sport is earning $35,000.  That is why there is a growing amount of illegal poachers.  Poachers hunt polar bears to sell their body parts for profit.  Although many countries banned importing of polar bear parts, poachers are still finding ways to sell their polar bear parts by smuggling them.  Who would want kill a polar? They are so cute and cuddly.  Although they may look cute and cuddly, in reality, they are not.  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 very dangerous and aggressive.  Killing a polar bear is not considered illegal if they are aggressive (Taylor, 2006).

If human activities are endangering polar bears, why do humans continue?  Maybe it’s because polar bears are the least of their problems.  Many natives are against putting polar bears on endangered species list because it will prevent them from continuing their hunting traditions that have been past down from generation to generation.  Natives consider the earth’s warming temperatures the problem, not hunting (Hansen, 2008).  Owners and workers of greenhouse-emitted companies would not be happy as well.  If polar bears were put on the endangered species list, global warming will be to blame.  This would allow the Advocates of Global Warming (AGW), the right to file lawsuits against companies that emit greenhouse gases.  The AGW would be able to sue major companies such as car manufacturers, electric companies, nuclear power plants, food producers and suppliers, and petroleum establishments, all of which were established to aid the human lifestyle.  In addition, many people work for these companies.  If these companies are forced to shut down, the unemployment rate will drop, which may lead to an increase in homeless rate.  If polar bears are considered endangered because of global warming, emissions will be regulated under the Endangered Species Act, and not the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (Morrissey, 2010).  Another reason why people are against protecting polar bears is because there are other important issues to worry about.  When global warming and other natural disasters take effect, no one will be thinking about polar bears.  Instead, they will be more interested in finding ways to save our planet and the human race.  Government money is spent towards researching polar bears, which is why people aren’t too keen about helping polar bears.  Many people believe there are better things the government should spend their taxpayer dollars on, such as health benefits, education costs, and economic debt.  However, research on polar bears play an important role related to the effects of global warming.  Without researching polar bears, we wouldn’t obtain knowledge of what is happening in the arctic and global warming.  That is why it is important to prevent polar bears from being endangered.

Recurring environmental and human-related problems, such as global warming, pollution, and human activities, are the major causes why polar bears may be put on the endangered species list because it decreases their food source, minimizes their habitat, and poisons them with dangerous chemicals.  If no action is taken to protect the future of polar bears, there will be no polar bears left on earth.  Luckily, there are many organizations that are dedicated in saving polar bears, but humans should do their part too.  There are many ways to prevent polar bears from disappearing. Reducing emissions would be the number one solution to decreasing polar bears (Amstrup, S.C., Bailey, D.A., Bitz, C.M., DeWeaver, E.T., Douglas, D.C., Durner, G.M., & Marcot, B.G., 2010).  This would include lessening necessary everyday activities such as gas transportation and decreasing energy usage.  Furthermore, addressing these issues and educating concerns for polar bears are other ways to save them.  Polar bears are wonderful creatures and they deserve to live.  Although it will be a long time before polar bears are wiped off the face of the earth, it is critical to take current corrective action to save them from being extinct.

References

Amstrup, S.C., Bailey, D.A., Bitz, C.M., DeWeaver, E.T., Douglas, D.C., Durner, G.M., & Marcot, B.G.  (2010).  Greenhouse Gas Mitigation can Reduce Sea-Ice Loss and Increase Polar Bear Persistence.  Nature, 468, 955.  doi:0.1038/nature09653

Amstrup, S.C., Douglas, D.C., & Fischbach, A.S.  (2007).  Landward and Eastward Shift of Alaskan Polar Bear Denning Associated with Recent Sea Ice Changes.  Polar Biology, 30, 1395.  doi:10.1007/s00300-007-0300-4

Amstrup, S.C., Perham, C., Smith, T.S., Stirling, I., & Thiemann, G.W.  (2006).  Recent Observations of Intraspecific Predation and Cannibalism among Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea.  Polar Biology, 29, 997.  doi:10.1007/s00300-006-0142-5

Courtland, R.  (2008).  Polar Bear Numbers Set to Fall.  Nature, 453, 432.  doi:10.1038/453432a

Cardona-Marek, T., Knott, K.K., Meyer, B.E., & O’Hara, T.  (2009).  Mercury Concentrations in Southern Beaufort Sea Polar Bears, Variation Based on Stable Isotopes of Carbon and Nitrogen.  Environment Toxicology and Chemistry, 28, 1416-1424.  doi:10.1897/08-557.1

Deroacher, A.E.  (2010).  Climate Change: The Prospects for Polar Bears.  Nature, 468, 905-906.  doi:10.1038/468905a

Evans, T.J., Gleason, J.S., Miller, S., Proffitt, K., Rode, K.D., Schliebe, S., & Wilder, J.  (2008).  Effects of Sea Ice Extent and Food Availability on Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Polar Bears during the Fall Open Water Period in the Southern Beaufort Sea.  Polar Biology, 31, 999.  doi:10.1007/s00300-008-0439-7

Hansen, J.  (2008, February 5).  Hunting Polar Bears is Not the Problem.  The Arctic Council.  Retrieved from http://arctic-council.org/

Monnett, C. & Gleason, J.S.  (2006).  Observations of Mortality associated with Extended Open-Water Swimming by Polar Bear in the Alaska Beaufort Sea.  Polar Biology, 29, 681-687.  doi:10.1007/s00300-005-0105-2

Morrissey, E.  (2010, December 23).  Obama WH say Polar Bears not Endangered.  Hot Air.  Retrieved from http://hotair.com/

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.  National Geographic News. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/

Rosing-Asvid, A.  (2006).  The Influence of Climate Variability on Polar Bear (Ursus Maritimus) and Ringed Seal (Pusa Hispida) Population Dynamics.  Canadian Journal of Zoology, 84, 357.  doi:10.1139/Z06-001

Sonne, C. (2010).  Health Effects from Long Range Transported Contaminants in the Arctic Top Predators: An Integrated Review based on Studies of Polar Bears and Relevant Species.  Environmental International, 36, 461.  doi:10.1016/j.envint.2010.03.002

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/

Oil Activity in the North.  (n.d.).  WWF Polar Bear Tracker: Polar Bears at Risk.  Retreived from http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfap/polarbears/risk/oil.html

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

Yardley, W.  (2010, May 5).  Recovery Still Incomplete After Valdez Spill.  The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Research 5 Final Draft: Climate Change and Biodiversity: An Economic Approach to Prioritization

 The modern age is unique to those who will live to see it, and for the same reason is identical to every age that has come before it. That reason is the requirement for the people of any age to tackle the problems that come with it. For thousands of years those problems were of the most basic kind. The need to eat and sleep safely. Enter, five thousand years ago, the state level society. Though in large part humanity is no longer slave to the basic requirements of survival, life’s new complexities bring with it problems of equal complication. The list includes such staples as terrorism, disease prevention and treatment, and perhaps what most people would consider to be the king of monsters, global climate change. Any such list of problems must be prioritized in order to handle them effectively. While climate change may seem as though it should take the head of any such list, it has been argued by some, including the Copenhagen Consensus, that the benefit of dealing directly with climate change is not sufficient to account for its cost. Looking instead to rising costs associated with declining biodiversity, as well as the direct short term benefits of protecting it, prioritization seems clear. Although climate change is a serious issue biodiversity poses a more immediate concern because it is more cost effective, it creates sustainability, and it produces practical technological and economical benefits.

To demonstrate clearly the most important point of this paper, that biodiversity can be divorced from and prioritized above climate change, it is necessary to give examples of how the two issues overlap and why biodiversity problems are more than just a symptom of climate change. First this paper will examine maritime issues and then take a look at grassland microcosms. In a 2010 article written by Alice McKeown, she states that “Climate change is arguably the most important factor the for the future of coral reefs …. [which are] particularly susceptible to warming sea-surface temperatures”(Mckeown, 2010). The article notes that bleaching associated with the rising temperatures have killed 16% of the world’s corals. It also states that climate change has resulted in a 30% increase in ocean acidity, which weakens coral and slows its reproductivity. However the same article also notes other human activities such as overfishing as well as destructive fishing.

According to a fact sheet published by the World Resources Institute in February 2011, coral reefs in southeast Asia are the most diverse in the world. These reefs account for 28% of the world’s total reef terrain, and by the reckoning of the same report, 95% are at risk from local threats (WRI, 2011). Chief amongst these threats are over fishing, destructive fishing, and maritime pollution. Overfishing results largely from the high density of human populations adapted to coastal life from Japan all the way south to New Guinea. Historical and contemporary net and line fishing practices quickly outpaced the carrying capacity of the region. The destructive practices listed by the WRI report are blast (or explosive) fishing and poison fishing. The pollution is a bi-product of the coastal settlements, mainly sewage water which flows into the ocean. The report places much of the blame for the continued threat to mismanagement within the Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), citing that of the 600 MPAs, which only cover 17% of the region’s reefs, only 3% were listed as effectively managed (WRI, 2011). An excellent example of the problems associated with human activities in maritime communities is the ethnography of two such communities written by Cynthia Neri Zayas. In her work, The Ethnographies of Two Japanese Maritime Communities, Zayas looks into the role played by rural japanese fishing villages as they make strides to adapt to a changing environment. It should be noted that her work is not strictly concerned with biodiversity and yet throughout her writing the effects of the humans on the environment is clear. Zayas’ specific example speaks to the history of a shelter port named Habuminato. The town is founded in 1800 with a clear aim towards being a shelter port for passing trade ships, however forest clearing practices quickly make for good farming land, in addition net fishing practices come in from the north of japan. The popularity of net fishing as a means for gaining wealth in merchant fishing quickly leads to losses as the seas in the area are overfished. Meanwhile, the farm land becomes some what unsustainable due to soil degradation. (Zayas, 1989) Thankfully, in the case of Habuminato the people were resourceful enough to continue to exist despite the anthropogenic changes to the region. What Zayas manages to show without expressly mentioning it, are the adverse effects on humans of diminishing biodiversity. Of equal subtext in her writing is ability of humans to fix the problem at a local level. In the case of Habuminato a regional branch of the Fishing Association was able to enact policies to ensure that fish returned to the area and responsible fishing practices would be sustainable into the future. (Zayas, 1989)

This line of thought is corroborated more concretely by Rebecca Clausen’s 2008 paper, Economic Growth and Marine Biodiversity: Influence of Human Social Structures on Decline of Marine Trophic Levels. In the body of the paper Clausen identifies the environmental kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis which had essentially stated that a nation’s environmental impact existed on a bell curve and that eventually as the nation developed that curve would diminish. Based on this hypothesis a nation needed only to develop past a certain level of industrialization to minimize it’s impact on the environment. However, Clausen’s findings refute that hypothesis by noting that there is a 1:1 proportional ratio of economic growth to marine use. (Clausen, 2008) This translates to a net loss of biodiversity without some sort of human intervention.

What is important to note about the reports listed above is the distinct difference between the problems caused by climate change, and more localized forms of human activity. Intertwined with this difference in scope is the difference in the human capacity for immediate actionable change. While it may take the combined efforts of globalized nation states to make a difference on the impact of climate change, local communities can decrease their impact on biodiversity with local measures. In the case of threatened coral reefs in southeast Asia the answer could be as simple as more strictly adhering to the standards of their MPAs. The associated changes that adherence would force in environmental protection and fishing practices would produce a much quicker turn than changes in global policy on Co2 emissions. The lesson of this example is that from a cost benefit analysis of problems it makes more sense to focus on biodiversity issues than climate change. The next section of the paper will focus on the scientific benefits of having microcosms to study.

Several studies have been conducted using the grassland microcosm as an out door laboratory. Generally these studies seek to demonstrate how the community deals with invasion of foreign plants, and how such invasions can effect biodiversity. Andy Hector who conducted a 2001 study using the model describes the theory going into his study by mentioning Charles Elton saying: “the initial idea [is] that diverse communities better resist invasions.” (Hector, 2001). For his study Hector cleared a plot in Silwood Park in England and separated it into 80 segments, each 2x2m. Varying amounts and numbers of different plant species were planted in each segment randomly. The study lasted for four years as members watched the 80 segments for encroachment of plants from other plots. In the first three years of the study the segments were regularly weeded after allowing the plants to grow enough to determine how much encroachment had occurred. In the fourth year the plants were allowed to grow fully to replicate natural events. Over the course of the four years there was a negative relationship between initial diversity and the amount of foreign invasion.(Hector, 2001) That is to say with more species diversity in the first place, the plants were less susceptible to being over run by invading plants from adjacent segments. While this may seem to be common sense the study verifies facts which have real benefits to industries such as agriculture. While this is a clear cut case of how maintaining diversity can make life ways more sustainable, what follows are technologies developed by observing nature which could be lost if biodiversity declines.

A 2008 paper by Nico Eisenhauer plays up the animal role in the same ecosystem by looking at the interplay not only of indigenous and invading plants, but of the earthworms who feed on both. The study revealed an interesting correlation between the worms and invading plants in particular. It seemed that invading plants with large seeds were particularly well suited to being deposited by earthworms as they ate and burrowed through plots of land. Thus a particular type of invasion would be favored in the environment. This invasion was controlled by the diet of the earthworm. (Eisenhauer, 2008) This study points to the likely co evolution of the plants and worms, thus bringing to the foreground the important balance inherent to maintaining biodiversity. Also of note in demonstrating the link between animal and plants, particularly in relation to loss of biodiversity is a 2010 BBC article by Richard Black. The article demonstrates the hardships faced by honey bees in the face of declining bio diversity. Experiments conducted by the French National Institute for Agricultural Research have discovered that bees given access to 5 types of pollen had higher levels of glucose oxidase compared to bees given just one, even if that one had a higher protein content. (Black, 2010) This is important because glucose oxidase is used by the bees as a preservative in honey and food which makes both more resistant to microbes, thus increasing the health of the colony. The article mentions that in the face of declining biodiversity the US has lost entire bee colonies.

The nitrogen cycle is a key component to life on earth. It makes up 78% of the atmosphere and is essential in creating amino acids, the basic building blocks of life. However recent human activities, namely C02 emission and waste water management have upset the balance. These problems have compounded to reduce the diversity of the grassland microcosm, but a study by Marcel Van Der Heijdan examines how these effects can be mitigated. Nitrogen saturation lends its self to creating a grass rich environment to the detriment of other plant types. However Van Der Heijdan learned that by introducing Mycorrhizal fungi into an ecosystem, this effect can be negated. This is because the fungi live symbiotically with various plant types and allow them to survive the strain of a nitrogen rich environment. ( Van Der Heijdan, 2008) This example completes the circle by introducing not just plants and animals, but also the atmosphere into the discussion of biodiversity.

It should be clear now how the natural cycle has evolved to work, and implications for human benefits have perhaps become clear in showcasing the grassland microcosm. To make it perfectly clear one need look no further than a 2009 article by David Mussared. In writing for a website hosted by the Australian government Mussared explains the important function of biodiversity to Australian farmers. Wild cottons and grains which grow in environments inhospitable to their domesticate cousins are studied continuously in an effort to allow farmers to extend their lands further into the Australian bush. This provides essentially more land and more profit for the farmers. Mussared also notes the importance of pharmaceutical research in the outback, detailing the possible loss in profit should possible plant cures be lost. (Mussared, 2009) Likewise Giles Atkinson ,in his seminar Biodiversity: An Economic Approach, discusses the economic incentives that should be given to farmers who observe healthy farming practices for the environment. His summation is that the answer is to provide incentives in the way of tourism profits and other compensation for farmers who agree to allow a portion of their land to remain untouched by industrial farming. (Atkinson, n.d.)

The website http://www.globalissues.com contains a page dedicated to biodiversity. A short list of the natural benefits it provides are food, shelter, and air. (Shah, 2011) From the science of evolutionary biology humans have gained several discoveries with innumerable applications to every day life. At the top of the list are the several diseases for which there now exist cures or treatments. By studying the evolution of bacteria scientists can understand how best to fight these infections. By studying various plants medical applications can be found and disseminated. From these examples alone it seems obvious why biodiversity is important. If the plants and bacteria die, their direct benefit to humanity dies with it. However it isn’t only life saving measures we have biodiversity to thank for. Some more mundane comforts are also thanks to the wide variety of fauna and flora on the planet. For instance the silk worm which has clothed fahsion-ites for centuries. Who could forget the child’s favorite chocolate? Demand for this dessert staple is expected to double by 2050, however, the natural habitat of the cocoa leaves is threatened by the commercial practice of harvesting them. This is usually done in a clear cut manner which devastates biodiversity in the region. Study suggests that by maintaining the environment, the leaves could potentially produce higher yields. (Bisseleua, 2009) Scientists have also examined the spider web, pound for pound stronger than steel, to find a better way to create metal alloys. (Boutry, 2009) Aviators in recent years have enjoyed wing redesigns inspired by following the evolutionary model of bird wings. And of course, as would be suggested by the first part of this paper, the sea is a heavy contributor to human life ways in several capacities, as highlighted by Ressurreição‘s 2011 piece on the economic value of species loss in the open sea.

Over the course of this paper three main points have been observed. The first of those points being the fact that climate change and biodiversity indeed overlap, but biodiversity is a distinct problem with a more efficient, cost effective solution than climate change. Second, by highlighting Andy Hector’s study on grass microcosms the capacity of biodiversity to maintain a sustainable habitat for all the life within it has been demonstrated. Finally a short list of the benefits which flow from maintaining biodiversity, both luxuries and necessities, demonstrates how intertwined humanity really is in the web of diversity. Fortunately studies are already resulting in plans to maintain diversity. One such example is a 2009 report by Susie Brownlie and Mark Botha which showcases the holes in a South African plan to maintain biodiversity with in so called Biodiversity Offsets. The plan seems well intentioned, by requiring land owners to maintain preserve areas. However the research conducted demonstrates that the provisions in the plan would serve to segregate species and eventually shatter diversity. (Brownlie & Botha, 2009) Fortunately the study also presents an alternative solution to the problem. It seems common sense to recognize that action at the local level is capable of creating great change in biodiversity, whereas it will require the efforts of nations to contain the problem of climate change. For this reason concerned individuals should prioritize biodiversity as a more realistic problem to overcome, if not in the grand scheme of things, than certainly in the short term.

Anup Shah, A.P. (2011, April 6th). Why is biodiversity important? who cares?. Retrieved from http://www.globalissues.org/article/170/why-is-biodiversity- important-who-cares#SoilbacteriaplantstheNitrogenCycle

Atkinson G.(n.d.). Biodiversity: an economic approach. Retrieved from http://www.fathom.com/course/21701792/index.htm

Bisseleua, D. B., Missoup, A. D., & Vidal, S. S. (2009). Biodiversity Conservation, Ecosystem Functioning, and Economic Incentives under Cocoa Agroforestry Intensification. Conservation Biology, 23(5), 1176-1184. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01220.x

Black, Richard. (2010, January 20). Bee decline linked to falling biodiversity.

Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8467746.stm

 Boutry, C., & Blackledge, T. A. (2009). Biomechanical variation of silk links spinning plasticity to spider web function. Zoology, 112(6), 451-460.

Brownlie, S., & Botha, M. (2009). Biodiversity offsets: adding to the conservation estate, or ‘no net loss’?. Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal, 27(3), 227-231. doi:10.3152/146155109X465968

Clausen, R., & York, R. (2008). Economic Growth and Marine Biodiversity: Influence of Human Social Structure on Decline of Marine Trophic Levels. Conservation Biology, 22(2), 458-466.

Eisenhauer, N., & Scheu, S. (2008). Invasibility of experimental grassland communities: the role of earthworms, plant functional group identity and seed size. Oikos, 117(7), 1026-1036.

Hector, A., Dobson, K., Minns, A., Bazeley-White, E., & Hartleylawton, J. (2001). Community diversity and invasion resistance: An experimental test in a grassland ecosystem and a review of studies. Ecological Research, 16(5), 819-831.

McKeown, A. (2010). Coral Reefs under Threat. World Watch, 23(1), 15. Retrieved from EBSCOhost

Mussared, D. (2009). Don’t read this, you know it all already – Why farmers should care about biodiversity. Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/articles/

van der Heijdan, M. A., verkade, S., & de bruin, S. J. (2008). Mycorrhizal fungi reduce the negative effects of nitrogen enrichment on plant community structure in dune grassland. Global Change Biology, 14(11), 2626-2635.

Ressurreição, A., Gibbons, J., Dentinho, T., Kaiser, M., Santos, R. S., & Edwards-Jones, G. (2011). Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea. Ecological Economics, 70(4), 729-739.

World Resource Institute, W.R.I. (2011, february 02). Coral reefs revisited. Retrieved from http://pdf.wri.org/factsheets/factsheets_reef_main.pdf

Zayas, C. N. (1999). The ethnographies of two japanese maritime communities. Third World Studies Cntr.

Research Final Draft: Improving Forest Managment

Improving Forest Management

            The forest product industry, land managers, and environmental groups are extremely concerned with the future of forests worldwide. In order to continue to harvest trees for wood, convert it to demanded products, and market those products at reasonable prices, it must be done safely and in a way that the forest will be renewed with healthy, well-stocked stands of trees. It is very important to develop multiple uses of forest land by doing everything practicable to protect soil, water, wildlife, recreational, aesthetic, and other environmental values. (Sierra Pacific Industries, 2011). Fortunately, trees are a renewable natural resource and humans have been studying their every aspect for centuries. Proper forestry practices will insure a never ending supply of trees to meet the worlds demand for forestry products, food, services, and other uses (McEvoy, 2008).  Although timber harvests and logging techniques of the past may have been destructive to the environment, modern forestry practices prevent destruction to the environment from timber harvests and logging because of erosion prevention and water quality control, the ability of foresters to choose the appropriate harvest methods, and the reclamation of logging sites for future forest development.

Forestry is the art and science which deals with the management of current and future tree resources.  The main point of forestry and forest management is to develop, model, and follow systems that allow forests to continue on a sustainable path, insuring that environmental supplies and services are met today and in the future (Sierra Pacific Industries, 2011). Forest management activities associated with logging include road construction and timber harvest.  These operations can easily disturb soil if not managed and monitored by trained professionals with state of the art equipment and design.  Disturbed soil is very often the cause of erosion and sedimentation which can seriously jeopardize water quality in nearby streams, lakes and watersheds. The continuation of high quality water and the health of soil are the most important goals and objectives for land managers aside from the maximization of harvest yield, profit, and forest regeneration (Rimal & Lal, 2009).  It is very important for loggers, foresters, and landowners to make the appropriate decisions and follow through with well planned actions.  Their methods and choices will have long lasting and wide ranging effects locally, on adjacent land, and down stream of logging or timber harvest sites (Sierra Pacific Industries, 2011). Land managers, foresters, and land owners may even be held liable for water contamination or pollution resulting from timber harvest operations.  This puts serious pressure on these professionals to take every step necessary to prevent soil degradation, erosion, and water pollution. The science of forestry and methods for sustainable timber harvests are common practice today and improving.  Destructive timber harvests are unacceptable (Hughes, 2011).

Many environmental groups and scientists are opposed to most or all logging and tree harvests.  They claim that deforestation is a major cause of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, soil erosion, water pollution, poor aesthetics, and the loss of biodiversity (Loiselle & Ribeiro & Goerck & Graham, 2010). Some of these claims may be true in certain parts of the world, mostly due to illegal logging (Alemagi & Kozak, 2010).  Modern forestry practices like those occurring in developed countries can prevent all of these travesties from occurring.  Global outreach to the developing world by organizations such as the Society of American Foresters is on the rise.  The efforts and effects of these professional outreach programs are all positive.  Educating people to properly manage forests is the only way that humans can continue to utilize trees for wood products, food and fuel while maintaining environmental integrity, soil conditions, and clean water supplies.

Streamside management zones are relatively undisturbed buffer areas that extend around the boundaries of water ways. They are located around perennial and intermittent streams, vernal ponds, lakes, natural springs, and reservoirs. These buffer areas trap and filter out suspended sediments before they can enter water ways. Too much sedimentation in water ways is bad for aquatic species and human consumption (Idowu & Schindelbeck & Moebius-Clune & Gugino & Es & Abawi & Wolfe, 2009).  Buffer areas always require special attention in a harvest or logging operation.  While some trees may be harvested from the streamside management zones or buffers, operations in this area should not cause any soil disturbance. If soil disturbance does occur, the area should be stabilized immediately and monitored.  Sediment barriers should be installed between the stream and the disturbed area if necessary (Rimal & Lal, 2009). Sediment barriers are also used a lot in the construction of logging roads and trails.

There is a lot of road construction associated with logging practices.  Techniques have been developed to help minimize and reduce soil erosion.  Before any trees are cut down, the timber harvest begins with the planning of roads, trails, and landing locations.  During planning, surveyors, forestry professionals, and loggers will design logging roads and trails in a way so that their length and widths are made to minimal requirements.  A short and narrow road or trail has less impact to its natural surroundings.  Landings for logs and equipment should be planned to disturb the smallest possible land area.  All of the physical land alterations should be well thought out and performed on firm, well-drained ground. This helps to prevent erosion. Slash and residue piles should be made away from drainages or streams, for these can cause an overload of nutrients and sediment into ground water and runoff (Rimal & Lal, 2009). Ground disturbance should be minimized and fixed properly.  There should be as few stream crossings during logging activity as possible.  Stream crossings require the use of structures to allow the water to pass under the road. In most cases this will be a culvert pipe that is correctly sized for drainage of the land area above the stream crossing location. It is best to harvest trees as far from water ways as possible, although the highest quality trees often grow near aquatic sources.

The timber harvest is the physical part of forest management.  Timber harvests should be designed to utilize trees at the proper time of their life cycle, start a new stand of desired species on the harvested area, and provide space for the new tree growth. Each timber harvest is different because each forest, geographic region, and individual tree is unique.  The removal of surplus cull trees, also called thinning, is a part of improved harvest cutting.  Thinning is done to remove competition to individual trees. This action is very important and provides trees with improved sunlight, water availability, and nutrient content of root soils (Thompson & Lewis & Daniels, 2007).  Several different improved harvesting methods may be used either on their own or in combination with other methods. The timber harvest methods most commonly used are selective cutting, diameter-limit cutting, shelter wood, and clear cutting. The first two methods result in uneven-aged stands and the later two in even-aged stands (Pulkki, 2010). Selecting the proper harvest method is crucial to financial return, environmental integrity, soil health, and forest regeneration.

Selective cutting is the removal of selected trees throughout the range of merchantable sizes at more or less frequent intervals for an indefinite period of time. Trees are selected and marked for removal either as individual trees or in small groups. Diameter-limit cutting is the periodic harvest of all trees above a set size, usually the diameter at stump height. Although this is a form of selective cutting, usually removes only the largest trees from the stand at each harvest. This is in contrast to true selective cutting which removes merchantable trees in all sizes in a controlled manner. Diameter limits should be varied by species in most stands, and set so that adequate stocking remains after each harvest (Craig & MacDonald, 2009). The method is most useful in low-grade timber like interior Alaska’s Boreal Forest where more intensive methods are not justified (Fleming & Baldwin, 2008).

Shelter wood cutting is the harvest of the entire stand in two or more cuts spaced over several years. The main purpose is to insure renewal of a new stand of trees before the final harvest. It is best adapted to shade-tolerant species. In actual practice, nearly all hardwood stands renew themselves even after a burn, without keeping an over story (Thompson et. al., 2007). Clear cutting is the harvest of all merchantable trees from an area and the killing or cutting of all non merchantable stems larger than about 2 inches in diameter at breast height or more than 25 feet tall (Rosenvald & Lohmus, 2008).  The purpose of removing the non merchantable stems is to allow the new natural reproduction to grow vigorously without serious competition from residual trees. Under the clear cutting method, trees are harvested by selected areas rather than by selected stems (Pulkki, 2010).  Clear cut timber harvests are the most economically efficient.  This is why they were used as the primary harvest method for hundreds of years before we understood how they can affect total ecosystems if not properly planned and managed.

At the completion of forest harvest operations, reclamation of the logging site and roads is required to stabilize any disturbed soil and to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation loss. Successful reclamation may require the use of lime to adjust soil pH and fertilizer for soil nutrient enhancement along with a seed mixture to encourage and ensure seed germination and growth of preferred tree species and native under growth species like grasses and shrubs (Timoney & Peterson & Wein, 1997). In addition, skid and haul road reclamation requires removal of large berms, out sloping, the smoothing of road surfaces, and installation of water bars. Reclamation activities should begin as soon as work is completed in each area of operation (Timoney & Peterson & Wein,1997). The regeneration of forests and continuity of a harvest plan is essential to environmental health and sustainability.

As part of the reclamation process, soil may need to be scarified before seeding, if the soil is compacted. Scarification is the term for tearing up land  and often creating rows for seeds or seedlings.  It helps new growth occur much faster than if the soils are left unaltered or compacted from harvest operations. Native grasses and other fast growing plants provide quick ground cover for soil stabilization and seeding is recommended (Busby & Foster & Motzkin & Canham, 2009). Dry sites and areas where the subsoil is exposed may require lime and fertilizer. The amount of lime or fertilizer needed is site specific and can be determined by conducting soil tests and referring to soil professionals. Slash, (which includes limbs, tops and unused logs) remaining from the timber operation can also be dispersed in the forest area to supplement soil protection (Nix, 2011). Controlled burns can also dispose of slash and regenerate soils with ash.  Fire recycles nutrients quickly and soils are able to absorb them easily. This is a natural process in many ecosystems and improves soil health (Abawi & Gugino & Ludwig, 2010).

Forests provide humans with many products and services that are used in our everyday lives and improve our standard of living. Examples of these products and services that are common place in this country and many others include paper, lumber, food, shade, wind reduction, and fuel.  It is essential to manage trees as renewable resources in such a way so that they can be utilized usefully and are enjoyable to future generations. Logging operations in the past degraded the land and water surrounding the harvest area.  It is understandable why environmental groups are concerned with the continuation of the forest product industry because of its poor record in the past. The improper logging practices of the past have been replaced by modern management and improved harvesting techniques. Over time, these practices will prove to be sustainable and acceptable to those currently opposed to logging and timber harvests (Macpherson & Vidal & Carter & Schulze, 2010).

Foresters, land managers, environmental scientists, soil scientists, and natural resource specialists have an educated and well versed understanding of how to prevent land and water degradation, promote forest regeneration, maximize growth, maximize profits, efficiently harvest selected trees in the appropriately harvest method at the appropriate time, and reclaim the land.  There are numerous steps to take and plans to be made prior to cutting down trees. The most important part is making the land able to grow trees again and again following each harvest (Cole, 2011). This is a reproducible cycle and it gives humans the ability to grow trees and forests forever.  I am studying forestry here at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and will graduate this spring with a Bachelors of Science.  With this degree and the education I have received here at UAF, I am confident that I can manage land for the maximization of profits from harvesting and growing trees while protecting and maintaining the land for future forests and harvests.

References

Abawi, G. S., Gugino, B. K., & Ludwig, J. W. (2010). The connections between soil health and root health. Bean Improvement Cooperative. Annual report, 5368-69. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Alemagi, D., & Kozak, R. A. (2010). Illegal logging in Cameroon: Causes and the path forward [electronic resource]. Forest Policy and Economics, 12(8), 554-561. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Busby, P. E., Foster, D. R., Motzkin, G., & Canham, C. D. (2009). Forest response to chronic hurricane disturbance in coastal New England [electronic resource]. Journal of Vegetation Science, 20(3), 487-497. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Cole, F. t. (2011). Record of decision : central Kupreanof timber harvest / lead agency, Tongass National Forest ; responsible official, Forrest Cole. In , R10-MB ; 704 Petersburg, AK : USDA Forest Service, Petersburg Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, [2011]. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Craig A. and Macdonald S.E. (2009). Threshold effects of variable retention harvesting on understory plant communities in the boreal mixedwood forest, Forest Ecology and Management 258, pp. 2619–2627.

Fleming R.L. and Baldwin K.A. (2008). Effects of harvest intensity and aspect on a boreal transition tolerant hardwood forest. I. Initial postharvest understory composition, Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38, pp. 685–697.

Hughes, J. (2011). Ancient Deforestation Revisited [electronic resource]. Journal of the History of Biology, 44(1), 43-57. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Idowu, O. J., Schindelbeck, R. R., Moebius-Clune, B. N., Gugino, B. K., Es, H., Abawi, G. S., & Wolfe, D. W. (2009). Use of an integrative soil health test for evaluation of soil management impacts. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 24(3), 214-224. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Loiselle, B. A., Ribeiro, M., Goerck, J. M., & Graham, C. H. (2010). Assessing the impact of deforestation and climate change on the range size and environmental niche of bird species in the Atlantic forests, Brazil [electronic resource]. Journal of Biogeography, 37(7), 1288-1301. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

McEvoy, T.J. (2008). The Path to Good Forestry is Riddled with Myths. Retrieved from http://www.farmingmagazine.com/print-38.aspx

Macpherson, A. J., Vidal, E., Carter, D. R., & Schulze, M. D. (2010). A Model for comparing reduced impact logging with conventional logging for an Eastern Amazonian Forest [electronic resource]. Forest Ecology and Management, 260(11), 2002-2011. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Nix, S. (2011). Beyond the Harvest. Retrieved from http://forestry.about.com/cs/homeworkhelp/a/ClrcutBASF.htm

Pulkki, R.P. (2010). Harvesting Methods and Systems Defined. Retrieved from www.borealforest.org/world/innova/harvesting.htm.

Rimal, B. K., & Lal, R. (2009). Soil and carbon losses from five different land management areas under simulated rainfall [electronic resource]. Soil & Tillage Research, 106(1), 62-70. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Rosenvald R. and Lohmus A. (2008). For what, when, and where is green-tree retention better than clear cutting? A review of the biodiversity aspects, Forest Ecology and Management 255, pp. 1–15.

Sierra Pacific Industries. (2011). Sierra Pacific Forest Management. Retrieved from http://www.spi-ind.com/html/forests_management.cfm

Timoney K.P., Peterson G. and Wein R. (1997). Vegetation development of boreal riparian plant communities after flooding, fire, and logging, Peace River, Canada, Forest Ecology and Management 93, pp. 101–120.

Thompson, R. D., Lewis, K. J., & Daniels, L. D. (2007). A new dendroecological method to differentiate growth responses to fine-scale disturbance from regional-scale environmental variation [electronic resource]. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 37(6), 1034-1043. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Short Essay Revision – Book Review – “Food Matters: A Guide to Conscious Eating” by Mark Bittman

When we bite into a juicy steak, all we may think about is how good it looks and tastes.  But what we really should be thinking about is where it came from and consequences behind the production.  Each time we eat food, especially meat, it is one step closer to bigger problems with our environment, health, and economy.  Although we are not aware of the problems food cause, Mark Bittman’s Food Matters: A Guide to Conscious Eating, is a real eye-opener because he discusses the dangers of producing food, the hazards of overproducing, and how changing our diet will help our environment and health.

The process of producing food pays a price.  According to Bittman’s book, “Animals killed each year in the U.S. for food: 9 billion chickens, 100 million pigs, 250 turkeys, and 36 million cows” (Bittman, p. 22).  These animals are murdered each year just to feed our country alone.  Not only do these animals give up their lives for food, but also they experience cruel living conditions compared to pet dogs, cats, and birds.  They live in small, confined spaces that are very uncomfortable for them and not to mention, they roam in their own manure and manure of other animals as well.  It takes a lot of energy to create just one calorie of meat.  The energy that is use to produce meat and crops include utilizing machinery, heating, cooking radiation, and transportation, all of which create emissions that hurt our environment. “Livestock produces more greenhouse gas than the emissions caused by transportation” (p. 29).  The main cause of emissions is people’s high demand for food.

The number one reason why majority of the American population is obese is because of the overproduction of food.  The demand for meat is not only the cause of health problems but environmental problems as well.  The number of pigs and poultry has quadrupled, and the number of cattle, sheep, and goats has doubled since the 1980s.  “We currently raise 60 billion animals each year for food – ten animals for every human on earth” (p. 13).  Because of the growing demand for livestock, there is a need for more land.  Soon most of our land on earth would be exclusively for producing livestock, which means we may have to destroy existing forests and farmlands to accommodate them.  In modern day farming, farmers have invested in various ways to raised livestock efficiently and expeditiously.  As mentioned before, livestock animals live in confined spaces to conserve land.  However, these small spaces make them susceptible to diseases.  Nowadays, antibiotics are given to animals to keep them healthy enough to survive.  The antibiotics are also used to help animals gain weight to increase the supply of food.  Another way farmers help animals gain weight is changing their diet. Livestock animals, such as cows, are meant to grass.  Conversely majority of present farm animals feed on soy and corn to increase their body mass.  Soy and corn crops have become very high in demand for livestock feeding and our food as well.  Soy and corn is found in many food products we drink and eat, including junk food.  But because of the high demand for soy and corn, it requires more land.  To grow crops, there needs to be enough nutrients in the soil.  But because of the constant farming and reusing of land, nutrients in crop soil have decreased over the years.  Modern day farmers use chemical fertilizers to insert nutrients into the soil to help crops grow faster and bigger.  However, the production of fertilizers consumes a lot of energy that deposits emissions into the earth’s atmosphere.

One way we can help our environment is by changing our diet.  Less caloric intake of meats and high-processed food will reduce damage to our land, dangerous emissions, and animal cruelty.  Bittman (p. 68) informs us to particularly decrease intake of animals products, eat less refined carbohydrates and junk food, and most importantly eat more vegetables, fruits, legumes, and whole grain.  This way our environment and our bodies are healthy.  This book provides a variety of meal plans and alternate recipes that will help limit the production of greenhouse emissions.  Not all recipes in his book are vegetarian but they are flexitarian, which means fish or meat is optional.  For example, when you decide to cook kebobs, you’ll include more vegetables than meat.  Vegetables are the main ingredients in his recipes to encourage people to eat more veggies in order to save our environment.  He also gives helpful suggestions on dining out. Some time in our lives we have all dined out, whether it was for a special occasion or just a break from cooking.  Although we might get tempted to order that roast beef smothered in gravy or that double cheeseburger, don’t feel too guilty.  “In the Food Matters strategy, cheating is not only allowed but encouraged” (p. 107).  He encourages to doing what works well for us instead.  However, if we decide to fully discipline ourselves and eat sanely all the time, he published some helpful tips on how achieve that while dining out.  First, is to carry your own food so that you are not tempted to eat high-processed food.  Second is to plan what you’re going to eat ahead of time to help stick to a green diet.  Bittman’s book is a very helpful guide for anyone who wants to start eating healthier without hurting the environment.

So next time when we decide to bite into a juicy steak, let’s think about the problems we cause with each bite we take.  Each bite leads to greenhouse gases, destroyed lands, animal cruelty, and health issues.  A way we can save our planet is to substitute our unhealthy diet with food that does not include animal and heavy machinery.  Instead eat more plants.  It may not be easy but taking small steps always helps and also encourage others to do the same.  If we all can manage to change our lifestyle, we can look forward to a greener planet and well as a longer and healthier life.  Happy eating everyone!

Reference

Bittman, M.  (2009).  Food Matters: A Guide to Conscious Eating.  New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.

Shaun Bond Workshop Draft 2

Overall

Shaun, you do a particularly good job of keeping flow through your paper.  I was confused on some of your numbers. You state that 3 gigatons of carbon are sequestered terrestrially annually and 2 gigatons oceanically, then in the next sentence you say the total annual carbon sequestered is 16.5 gigatons; maybe I just read incorrectly.  A few pages later you cited that 123 gigatons of carbon are sequestered annually, perhaps include some added descriptions to organize these numbers.

Thesis

You do a good job stating your thesis and purpose, properly formatted.

Content

Your essay definitely meets the word count with 4000 words and I found it interesting and easy to read, 9 of 10 for my holding my attention.  I think you do an excellent job of addressing to opposite side of your argument by describing quantitatively how merely reducing carbon emissions is not enough.  Each paragraph does strengthen your thesis and from the evidence of your own emboldened sentences and “needs support” remarks clearly you are preparing for a stronger final draft.

Style

I especially like your opening sentence:  “Ever since it became fashionable to…” You nod towards the idea that the green movement is only a fad, I agree that for most people it is just a fashion statement and those people are  just trying to show off.  You need a concluding paragraph to summarize the essay and bring your ideas together.

Research

There certainly are enough sources and it looked like you used them well throughout your essay.  You do rely on Olajire often but you don’t over rely on that source.  I only saw one direct quotation in your essay, more could be useful to better support your ideas.