Rough Draft Research Essay(sorry its late, was confused with another date): for K. Torres

We Don’t Need Any Poisoned Salmon

 

By

Michael McNulty

English 213

Academic Writing For Social And Natural Science

 

 

           

            Even if you live out of Alaska, you must have heard something about the issue called Pebble Mine; if you haven’t, congratulations, you live in a very sheltered world. As we must all know by now, the prospect of Pebble Mine is among the upmost talked about and debated environmental issue facing the state of Alaska’s public and its wellbeing. Every day we, as Alaskans, view multiple advertisements either for or against the project, condoning it or saying it will help the state’s economy. The view that can be gathered by just asking around a town in any area of the state will most likely be a very one-sided statement. “It must be stopped immediately to save the environment” or “The mine will create jobs and revenue” are the base statements for either one respectively. An interesting thing about this topic though, is that there seems to be no neutral stance on it. It’s a very right or wrong, which side you’re on type of debate. To the basics, Pebble Mine is a proposed open pit mine situated in Bristol Bay near Lake Illiamna and is twenty miles from the villages of Illiamna, Newhalen, and Nondalton. (Coordinates of the mine site are 59°53′50″N 155°17′43″W).  While the heavy mining is a few years off, it is being postponed by heavy opposition, lobbying, laws, acts, groups, and discontent in general. Even overseas companies have voiced their opinion, in roundabout ways.

             With good reason, many opponents of the mine are involved with Bristol Bay’s many, large, productive salmon runs. Plans for Pebble currently say that all the waste material will be held behind three large earth made dams. This includes all mining waste which will stay there forever. In this essay, I will go over every aspect of the mine I can think of; and research the land that it will sit on itself, the wildlife in the area, the people living there, and the Pebble partnership’s plans during and after the mine. There will be a pros and cons for both sides; but ultimately I will be saying that the Pebble Mine should be stopped before it goes any farther than it already has. Our natural resources depend on the Bristol Bay watershed too much to risk it for a load of ore. In the end, it will be a question of natural resources that can provide indefinite pay and food for many people; or a shorter term mine that will benefit only a few compared to those who depend on the salmon.

            The mining at the Pebble prospect, as it is currently being called, dates back to even before it became a major issue. Back in 1986, the land rights belonged to CAE (Cominco Alaska Explorations) and surveys done using aircraft and basic geology observations judged the Pebble west prospect to be an area worth drilling. In 1988, CAE began their first drilling campaign that lasted until 1992; the Pebble west was then calculated to hold about three million tons of copper ore and eleven million ounces of gold trapped within one thousand million tons of ore. After this initial drilling, a decade passed before any other major work in the area commenced again. In 2001, enter the current mine owners, Northern Dynasty Mining Ltd. NDM put in a bid for the Pebble claims with Teck Cominco; Teck Cominco had succeeded CAE in the decade when Pebble wasn’t being mined. The following year, NDM began their own drilling exploration of the pebble prospect and came up with a new calculation of four thousand one hundred million tons of ore of resources in pebble west. In 2005, NDM gained full ownership of the mining rights and also discovered what is now known as pebble east. Pebble East was projected to surpass pebble west in possible ore body that could be profitably mined. In 2007, NDM was close to finishing a preliminary feasibility study with an actual feasibility study which commenced in 2011. By the end of 2007, NDM has about two hundred and twenty-five million sunk into the project with a supposed eighty-five million into socio-economic and environmental studies alone. To date in 2011, ninety-one million dollars has been budgeted for completion of feasibility studies which will then lead to permit applications. If everything goes right for them, NDM and Anglo American plan to begin building and mining in 2015.

            Now here is where we do some math. Pebble mine has sixty-seven billion pounds of copper, eighty-two million ounces of gold, and four million pounds of molybdenum. At 2008 to 2010 market prices, these ores combined to make an estimated profit of three hundred and seventy five to five hundred billion dollars. These estimates would make the entire Pebble Prospect the second, and now possibly the first, most valuable ore body of its type; second after the Grasberg Mine in Indonesia; with the potential to even surpass that mine, which makes it the most valuable or body of its type. The Bristol Bay Salmon industry alone brings in over one hundred and ten million on average a year. With last year’s prices and an estimated one hundred and eighty-six million salmon caught, the value upon the fish alone was just under five hundred and thirty-five million. This was the state wide harvest for last year’s season, the eleventh best season since statehood. Back in 2009, the total value of Alaska’s landings was about on point three billion dollars, the closest competitor of that year was Massachusetts with four hundred million dollars. In 2009, fishing revenues from every area of the industry brought in seventy-nine million. Looking at these numbers alone, pebble is the bigger payoff in the short run; yet the mine is estimated to be profitably productive for about one hundred years.

The Bristol Bay watershed area is located in an area that is prone to all kinds of natural events that can potentially damage any building or structures sitting on it. The mines and dams would face hazards that include earthquakes, volcanic activity, permafrost upheaval/collapse, snow avalanches, and stream icing. The area that is being planned for mining sits in the 2B seismic zone, which was rated at moderate seismic activity. The International Building Code specifies moderate seismic activity as ground motion ranges from 25 to 60% gravitational acceleration for 0.2 seconds to 12 to 25% gravitational acceleration for 1 second. This rating is equivalent to magnitude 5 earthquakes. There have been records of magnitude 7 earthquakes in the area. Alaska, throughout the state, experiences magnitude 6-7 earthquakes roughly 5 times a year; with magnitude 8 earthquakes occurring every thirteen years. Many of these earthquakes are generated in the subduction zone of the Pacific Plate going under the North American Plate. Even more worrisome is the fault lines that Pebble is located near. The Castle Rock fault line splits into the Bruin Bay Fault and the Lake Clark Fault by the head of Cook Inlet. The Bruin Bay Fault runs roughly parallel to Cook Inlet; while the Lake Clark Fault runs down through Lake Clark. Reports don’t agree where the exact fault runs but they say that Pebble Mine runs within 5 miles of the fault. The Pebble Limited Partnership claims the fault runs 18 miles away from the Pebble Mine. If a building is near a fault line and an earthquake occurs along that fault, the effects of said earthquake can exhibit three times as much force that the same quake would generate 200 miles away. Pebble Limited Partnership claims the mine structures can withstand magnitude 7.8 earthquakes, yet if they are 5 miles from the fault, this may not be enough to keep damages from happening to the facility or the tailing dams. The nearest volcanoes are about 100 miles away but are still very active, especially in recent years. Illiamna, the Katmai group, Ukinrek Maars, Ugashik-Peulik, and the Togiak Lava Fields are all listed as active volcanoes with eruptions occurring from Illiamna, Augustine, and Ukinrek within a century. Augustine alone last erupted in 2005 while Illiamna in 2003 and 2005, had non-eruptive activity. Currently, the Alaska Volcano Observatory has all these volcanoes listed as Green, meaning current activity or lack thereof is deemed normal for them. However, these volcanoes do lie on or near the Aleutian Arc; this arc makes up the northern border of the Ring Of Fire. Meaning these volcanoes are prone to activity. Threats from volcanoes by themselves can create pyroclastic flows, ash fallout, and lava flows. Geologist that did study in the area consider volcano induces mudflows (lahars) and volcanogenic floods to be the biggest threats. Any one of these natural occurrences could easily, in the least, cause minor damage to the facilities at Pebble. Another threat that could be devastating is tsunamis. An extreme example would be the 2009 Indonesia Tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands and destroyed as many homes. Given, Bristol Bay is more protected from tsunamis and not as many people live in the area. The Pebble Mine would also be inland possibly far enough to be safe. The only tsunami threat to Bristol Bay would have to come from the Bering Sea. However, not as protected is the proposed deepwater dock that ships would come tie up to take on cargo and ore from the mine. The proposed dock is planned to be built at Iniskin Bay in Cook Inlet.  The 1964 Good Friday Earthquake generated a tsunami that struck even into Kachemak Bay, which is pretty well protected. Iniskin Bay is more out in the open, but is located on the west side of Cook Inlet.

                        The companies backing Pebble Mine are Anglo America PLC. and Northern Dynasty LTD. with vested interests and stocks from other companies, including Rio Tinto and Mitsubishi. Anglo American, despite its name, is a London, U.K.  based company with a U.S. subsidiary. Northern Dynasty LTD. hails from Vancouver, British Columbia, while they have done a lot of exploratory drilling in Pebble, back in August the company put their 50% interest in the Pebble Prospect up for sale. So far, no bids have been placed. What would happen though id NDM sold their half of the partnership, they would be taking away their word and be replaced by a company that gave no word about preventing damage to environment. Rio Tinto is a dual bases mining company with offices in London, U.K. and Melbourne, Australia. Rio Tinto was brought into the Pebble Partnership back in 2006 by Northern Dynasty to lend credibility to the project. The main point is none of these mining companies are all from over-seas countries. While Alaska may benefit off of Pebble, it will be nothing compared to what Northern Dynasty and Anglo American and shareholders will make. In a report by Northern Dynasty, there were 95 million shares sold with a market capitalization of $959 million as of June 30, 2011. This means that those shares must be paid off before anybody else is, that includes the Alaska and anybody living in mining affected area. Plus, all the money they put into exploration and studies, they will want to make that back first thing at least.  As for claims that these companies want only the best for the environment of the Bristol Bay Watershed, a report by Philip Mattera (Anglo American’s Track Record: Rhetoric or Reality) concluded that despite the companies concern about environmental damage prevention; mines owned by the company had reports of acidic mine drainage getting into other rivers in South Africa, mercury air pollution in Nevada, and degraded rivers in Ireland. Rio Tinto has also been under pressure from their own questionable economic and social history. Given that accidents do happen, these are also accidents that have far reaching and disastrous effects; especially in Bristol Bay where neither people nor salmon can afford toxic spills flowing into the streams. Given these records and with the possibility that these companies don’t appear as stringent with mines on different continents; this is only another reason to shut down keep the Pebble Mine from coming to completion.

Stevens , S. P. A., & Craw , P. Stat Of Alaska Department Of Natural Resources, Division Of Geological & Geophysical Surveys. (2003). Geological hazards in and near the northern portion of the Bristol Bay Basin (Miscellaneous Publication 132). Fairbanks, Alaska: Alaska Division Of Geological & Geophysical Surveys.

Parker, G., Raskin, F., Woody, C. A., & Traskin, L. (2008). Pebble mine: fish, minerals, and testing the limits of Alaska’s “large mine permitting process”. 25(1), 50. Retrieved from http://www.fish4future.com

Sherwonit, B. (2008). Alaska’s pebble mine: fish vs. gold. 1(1), Retrieved from http://e360.yale.edu

Schmitz, O. J., & Graedel, T. E. (2010). The consumption conundrum: driving the destruction abroad. 1(1), Retrieved from http://e360.yale.edu

Kennedy Jr., R. F., Reynolds , J., & Cousteau, J. M. (2010). Pebble mine: foreign mining companies’s schemes would poison america’s paradise. Huff Post Green , 1(1), 6.

Maxwell , M. L. (2011, August 24). With billions at sake in bristol bay, mining company spends big. 6. Retrieved from http://indiancountrtodaymedianetork.com

Creamer, M. (2011). Anglo-american in thick of great alaska pebble mine debate. Mining Weekly, 1(1), 2. Retrieved from http://miningweekly.com

Mattera, P. (2008, July ). Anglo american’s track record: rhetoric or reality? Eye on Pebble Mine, 1(1), 34. Retrieved from http://eyeonpebblemine.org

Zamzow, K. (2009). Acid rock drainage and metal leaching at the pebble project. Pebble Science , 1(1), 3. Retrieved from http://pebblescience.org

Northern Dynasty Mines Inc. (2005, October). Response to the nushagak-mulchatna watershed council. Paper presented at ’180 questions about the pebble project

Bradner , T. (2011). Voters narrowly pass initiative aimed to shut out pebble mine. Alaska Journal of Commerce , 2011(23), 1. Retrieved from http://alaskajournal.com

Pemberton, M. (2011). Co. puts alaska’s pebble mine project up for sale. Associated Press, 2011(31), 1. Retrieved from http://alaskajournal.com

Research Draft #2: Why Sustainable Farming Trumps Organic

      Somewhere in Vermont a cow is leashed to a milking machine to be used three times daily.  Because never see a blade of grass in her lifetime, she is given corn with supplements (Paarlberg, 2009).  Her feet rest on bare cement and her head, tail, and sides each brush up against cement confines.  Her milk will be ultra-pasteurized before being shipped thousands of miles across the country (Feenstra, 2006).  And on the packaging will be a picture of a fat and happy bovine, chomping on freshly pulled grass under blue sky and the heading “Horizon Organic Milk”.   

      Organic used to epitomize a healthy, harmonious relationship between the people and the land.  It was a farming ideal, a lifestyle, rather than label it has become today. This was due in part to the growing demand for organic food; eventually, the government chose to regulate the use of the term organic to maintain standards for consumers. However, instead of protecting the integrity of organic foods produced by small farmers for decades, the new standards became a list of minimum requirements used by monolithic food corporations to grow organic foods- but in a different way. Unfortunately, corporately grown organic food allows for a lot of gray area in the food industry, such as disregarding other aspects of farming and production.  Yet these over-looked aspects of farming, which are not required of a company to be organic, are just as important when considering their effect on the environment and our health.  A system of food production is required which once again looks at the whole health of the land and people together.

      In comes sustainable farming. Sustainable farming addresses farming as a whole, as a lifestyle which emphasizes effective natural resource management, and what is best for people and the land from start to finish. The entire process of raising and growing, to distribution and packaging, is planned with regard to its various consequences, unlike big, corporate organic which focuses on meeting minimum requirements for maximum profit. Sustainable practices often lead the conscientious farmer to pursue old-fashioned organic ideals, regardless of their organic certification.  (Best, 2010).  Although organic farming is often perceived as being the same as sustainable farming, sustainable farming is more desirable because it offers the best resource management, land stewardship, and promotion of an all-over lifestyle of sustainability.

      Sustainable farms focus on preserving resources such as water, energy and soil, unlike giant organic farms which are not required to employ effective resource management. A corporate organic farm can use as much as water as is available without any accountability; their focus is the end result of organic produce.  This depletes a precious resource and strains local water supplies- which other people and animals rely upon.  One example of sustainability is that of the Sunshine Farm in Kansas. They have demonstrated success in using mainly reclaimed water (water which is treated at local water facility and reused) to irrigate their crops, which greatly reduces dependence on fresh water. (Baum, Patzek, Bender, Renich, & Jackson, 2009). Another way sustainable farmers conserve water is by planting crops which thrive naturally in the local climate.  Instead of planting whatever crop is highest in demand and forcing it to grow in unnatural conditions by drenching it with water, sustainability looks at planting the right crop for the land  (Parton, Gutmann, & Ojima, 2007). 

     Another method of effective resource management is the choice to use sustainable energy in the form of wind and solar power in farm operations. This minimizes reliance on diminishing supplies of fossil fuels. Corporate run organic farms often do not pursue wind or solar power due to their potentially high initial start-up cost. However, sustainable farms recognize the importance of using clean alternative energy, which does not require stripping the land of resources and putting pollutants into the air, which justifies the cost of such systems (Best, 2010).   

      Good land stewardship is integral to sustainable farming, as opposed to large organic systems which do not employ such stewardship moral to the same degree.  Good stewardship of the land incorporates rotational crops, maintenance of soil, and diverse use of small areas of land (Burtt, 2008).  Rotating the crops planted in the same parcel each year protects nutrients in the soil by using different nutrients according to the crops needs, and then returning nutrients to the soil as the crop waste breaks down. This requires less supplements added to the soil and promotes the natural health of the soil. Sustainable farms will plant in upwards of four to five year rotations verses the smaller two or three year rotations of larger farms (Considine, 2008).  The soil and crops are supplied with needed nitrogen, as well as enabled to break pervasive pest cycles and create natural pest control (Baum et al., 2009).  By planting cover crops such as clover or oats, the farmer is able to prevent soil erosion, inhibit unwanted plant growth, and provide food for farm livestock (Burtt, 2008).

      Windbreaks are also essential to a sustainable farm, and often overlooked by bigger organic farms, which will cut down such greenery in the desire to use as much land as possible for planting to maximize profit. Windbreaks, or shrubs and trees strategically planted to break the wind around planting areas have proven effective in the protection of soil erosion and help control the runoff of agricultural water into streams and lakes (Pearson, 2007).  They also protect the farm buildings, which reduce energy consumption, provide housing for wildlife, help shelter livestock from the elements, and can provide fruits or nuts to the farmer. (Baum, et al., 2009).  As an added benefit, the wood from windbreaks can be used around the farm. In conjunction with windbreaks, no-till farming, where the ground is not plowed before planting, leaves the soil (and the nutrients) intact and less likely to blow or wash away (Pearson, 2007).

      Because they frequently have smaller parcels of land than corporate organic farms, sustainable farmers are able to allow their livestock to graze on cover crops.  These practices provide nutrients to the soil in the form of natural fertilizer as well as providing natural food for the animals.  This makes for healthier livestock which are eating their natural diet, instead of being given food that may not be as natural or healthy for them to eat. Corn, whether organic or not, is often given to live stock as feed. However, a variety of grasses are much healthier for the animals to eat.

      Pesticide use is another concern for big organic operations.  Organic is marketed as pesticide free- however, over 20 chemicals have been approved for use in organic farming.  And not only are they approved, but their use is not limited or monitored (Chrzan, 2010).  Besides being misleading, over use of these chemicals can harm the consumer as well as have adverse environmental effects. Use of these chemicals will sometimes exceed several pounds per acre- which translates into a few hundred percent more additives per acre than non-organic farming (Burtt, 2008). Sustainable farming practices ensure that any additives used are done so with consideration of their excessive use, effects on the land, the water, the animals and people which will be consuming the harvested foods.

     A further mark of good stewardship of the land is the protection and maintenance of watersheds.  While sustainable farming will work to maintain or improve the integrity of watersheds, large organic operations offer hinder and detract from watersheds by using too much water, not focusing on water runoff, and not providing effective soil management which erodes soil which would ordinarily keep farm water from overflowing into watersheds.  The protection of watersheds means clean, viable water for wildlife, livestock, plants, and people. (Guttmann-Bond, 2010).  It also means the water will be protected with future generations in mind.

     Another important difference between corporate organic and sustainable farming practices is the lifestyle emulated by the two.  While a farm may be organic, their cows can be housed in concrete, fed organic food that is not wholesome and nutritious, and treated without dignity despite marketing schemes by the corporations that would convince consumers otherwise (Paarlberg, 2009).  Unfortunately, workers on organic farms can be treated much the same way.  Sustainable farming strives for harmony between the land, animals, and people.  What is best for the land, the animals, and the people is more important than high profit margins. 

     One can purchase organic apples at Trader Joe’s; however, they are packaged in plastic cartons.  The packaging of foods is important in the overall health of the environment and people, as packaging materials often contain chemicals which are unhealthy for consumers, are not recyclable, and leach toxins into water supplies as they break down (Sullivan, 2009). However, many sustainable farms will consider the sustainability of packaging and seek methods which will have the least impact on the environment and use the least amount of non-renewable resources. These packages often recyclable, reusable, or compostable such as glass and cardboard. (Sustainable Table Issues, 2009).

      In the efforts for sustainability, many farms offer community supported agriculture, or CSAs.  CSAs are shares of produce delivered from the farm to the buyer. By offering CSAs, farmers are able to provide consumers with fresh, locally grown, healthy, pesticide and additive free foods which are often competitive in price or cheaper than similar foods sold in grocery markets (Sullivan, 2009).  Small sustainable farms are often not marketable in large grocery stores which rely on industrial organic farms to provide produce, and often, organic offerings in stores have to be ultra-pasteurized, such as organic milk, to withstand the long distance travel (Feenstra, 2006). Buying locally is much fresher; also, by buying produce grown in season, the consumer is eating food that contains more nutrients and requires fewer resources, from start to finish.  Add the amount of fossil fuels required import organic bananas and grapes from Chile and the impact on resources is much larger than buying locally grown, sustainably produced, non-certified organic foods (Yan, Liding, Xinfeng, Haifeng, & Yihe, 2009).

     It is clear: sustainable farming trumps organic.  Sustainable farming encompasses a vast array of food production techniques which are ecologically friendly whereas industrial organic food production can only certify the end-product. Because sustainable farming practices the best resource management, land stewardship, and emulates a lifestyle of conscientious living not compatible with methods used by corporate organics, it is the more desirable method of farming.  Organic does not equal sustainable.

 

References

Baum, A. W., Patzek, T., Bender, M., Renich, S., & Jackson, W. (2009). The visible, sustainable farm: A comprehensive energy analysis of a midwestern farm. Critical Reviews in Plant    Sciences, 28(4), 218-239. doi:10.1080/07352680902963915

Best, H. (2010). Environmental concern and the adoption of organic agriculture. Society & Natural Resources, 23(5), 451-468. doi:10.1080/08941920802178206

Burtt, B. (2008). Growing organic. Alternatives Journal, 34(3), 14-15. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Chrzan, J. (2010). The American omnivore’s dilemma: Who constructs “Organic” Food?. Food & Foodways: History & Culture of Human Nourishment, 18(1/2), 81-95. doi:10.1080/07409711003708561

Considine, M. (2008). Integrating science to support sustainable agriculture. Ecos, (141), 33. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

 Feenstra, G. (2006). What is Sustainable Agriculture?. Retrieved from http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/concept.htm

Guttmann-Bond, E. (2010). Sustainability out of the past: how archaeology can save the planet. World Archaeology, 42(3), 355-366. doi:10.1080/00438243.2010.497377

Paarlberg, R. (2009). The ethics of modern agriculture. Society, 46(1), 4-8. doi:10.1007/s12115-008-9168-3

Parton, W. J., Gutmann, M. P., & Ojima, D. (2007). Long-term trends in population, farm income, and crop production in the Great Plains. BioScience, 57(9), 737-747. doi:10.1641/B570906

 Sustainable Table Issues: Organic Foods. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/organic/

 Yan, M., Liding, C., Xinfeng, Z., Haifeng, Z., & Yihe, L. (2009). What motivates farmers to participate in sustainable agriculture? Evidence and policy implications. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 16(6), 374-380. doi:10.1080/13504500903319047

Essay 3 Proposal – Unsafe Mail: The Dangers of Checking the Mail

Unsafe Mail: The Dangers of Checking the Mail

            Checking the mail is an every day task whether the mailbox is at the end of a driveway or inside a postal office and requires a key.  Either way, it is something people do on a regular basis throughout their lives.  Unfortunately, checking the mail in North Pole, Alaska, has become an increasingly dangerous task due to the location where mailboxes are being placed.  Instead of safer neighborhood roads, mailboxes are being installed on busier streets, such as Badger Road, Dawson Road, and Plack Road.  Although the placement of mailboxes may create a faster route for the postal service, local North Pole neighborhoods should petition to move their mailboxes onto their own neighborhood streets rather than main roads because it will reduce the litter that becomes ignored in convenient mailbox locations, create a safer place to check the mail, and diminish the eyesore that mailboxes have created for the local community.

            When a set of mailboxes are built on a busy street with cars whizzing by every time someone checks their mail, it is understandable why that person does not want to spend a great deal of time there.  He or she wants to make their mailbox trip as quick as possible.  Unfortunately, through these races to the mailbox, small pieces of junk mail and trash become thrown around the area, littering the mailbox grounds.  The litter is also a result of being located on the side of a main road.  Like every other road, litter is a problem due to careless drivers who simply throw their trash out the window or fail to secure belongings in the back of their vehicles.  The problem at stake here is that the litter is surrounding the community’s mailboxes, a place people face every day.  It is rare for a neighborhood to take their time to pick up the garbage when making their speedy run for their mail.  As a result, this trash is left untouched.  By moving mailboxes onto a smaller neighborhood road, the traffic litter is diminished and the neighborhood feels more comfortable checking their mail, spending the time they need at their mailboxes.  With this time, they have the chance to notice when mail is dropped or litter is found.  They have the opportunity to pick it up and clean the area to their liking so that checking the mail can be a more relaxing task.

            Litter is not the only element to consider in moving mailboxes off main roads.  Sadly, danger is also a factor that plays a large role.  People rush to and from their mailboxes for a reason: traffic.  Many of these busy two-way roads lack a shoulder to give residents room to safely walk to their mailboxes.  Instead, people must walk directly on the road in order to reach their mailbox, causing traffic to shift over into the other lane to pass.  Unfortunately, some drivers are not that considerate and simply speed past, not noticing how close their vehicle actually is to the person.  Moreover, winter causes the roads to be icy and far more dangerous for both drivers and pedestrians.  Sending people out on to these treacherous roads to check their mail is not only putting their own lives in danger, but it also creates another unsafe obstacle in drivers’ ways.  Having mailboxes moved onto neighborhood roads gives people the chance to pull to the side of their street and check their mail without walking out to a risky road where they may not be seen.

            Altogether, mailboxes are the cause of a major eyesore in the community.  As new houses are built and different neighbors move in, more mailboxes are added to the collection down the street.  This continuous addition of mailboxes causes the mailbox grounds to become a junkyard of various pieces of lumber and nails.  The ground becomes uneven and mailboxes tilt all different directions.  Many mailbox posts are constantly falling over due to winter driving accidents and unstable ground.  In the end, the scattered mailboxes down busy streets become a messy sight and an eyesore for what would be a beautiful community.  People need to take the step to move this disaster of a sight off of the main roads and create a way for mailboxes to be an organized and convenient area.  Neighborhood communities simply need to gather eighty percent of household votes in their area to sign a petition and turn into the North Pole Postal Service.  With this, they may receive the approval to move mailboxes onto the neighborhood street.  By doing this, they have the chance to come together as a neighborhood and work on cleaning their mailboxes in a way that suits them.  Some neighborhoods have done this already and have built structures that hold all the mailboxes together, rather than individual posts.  Some have even agreed to purchase the same mailbox and line them up in way that makes distributing mail easier on postmen.  There are numerous ways neighborhoods can diminish the eyesore and create a system that works solely for them – they simply need to take the first step.

            While checking the mail is a simple task, it is also a task that deserves a second look.  The North Pole community should take this second look and move mailboxes off of busy roads and onto safe neighborhood streets.  This decreases the amount of litter that is overlooked, creates a safer environment for checking the mail, and takes away the eyesore that mailboxes create.  Luckily, there is a simple way in making this happen and all it requires is the teamwork of neighborhoods in the community.  Checking the mail should not be a task that people hesitate in doing simply because of its location.  Checking the mailbox should be as easy as opening the letters found inside of it.

Essay 3 Proposal – Cleanup Ship Creek: Litter-bagging the Litterbugs

          The fisherman is standing at water’s edge, focusing intently on the tip of the arched rod in his hands, which has subsequently lunged towards the river in two quick motions.  “Fish on!” he yells, his excitement mounting as he hauls in the catch of the day. After several hurried turns of the reel, and with the attention of fellow fishermen, his prized specimen emerges from the water at the end of the line- a plastic coke bottle, cracked and half filled with silty sand. Unfortunately, plastic waste is not an isolated incident in Ship Creek. On any given day during the summer, garbage can found littering the banks- and floating in the waters- of Ship Creek. Although Ship Creek is maintained by the municipality of Anchorage, those of us who appreciate its resources should gather together for a cleanup day to remove lingering debris deposited during summer months because pollution left around Ship Creek washes out into the ocean, endangers wildlife, and threatens their habitat.

          A plastic water bottle on the end of a fisherman’s hook is more than just a nuisance. It is an indicator of a larger problem- one of litter pollution. We should take notice because that same bottle, or its countless litter counterparts, does not just cause problems in the creek. Ship Creek runs into the ocean water of the Cook Inlet, and brings the litter with it.  Litter in the ocean is bad because tumultuous waves can disintegrate garbage into even more pieces, quickly causing one piece to become hundreds. This inorganic waste in the ocean then deposits onto beaches- especially those nearby. So even if one does not use Ship Creek itself, one can find evidence of Ship Creek pollution elsewhere, such as along the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail. And let’s face it, most of us the Coastal Trail at one time or another. So instead of trying to clean up the ocean or the coastline later, let’s stop it now by cleaning up the creek.

          Cleaning debris from the creek area also helps protect its wildlife. Despite its juxtaposition to downtown, Ship Creek is frequented by a diverse population of animals.  Several species of salmon (from coho to king) navigate its waters, as well as many different birds (from sand pipers to sandhill cranes). Even otters use Ship Creek. Litter is dangerous to these creatures because litter is not natural. Man-made products are generally composed of chemicals which leach into the water as the product breaks down. Often times these chemicals are absorbed through the skin or consumed by animals and can act as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). EDCs mimic natural hormones produced in our bodies (or the bodies of animals), and wreak havoc by skewing the balance of hormones. This tells the body to do things it wouldn’t naturally be doing, which causes a cascade of abnormalities like premature sexual maturation or interrupted reproduction cycles. This is bad for any animal’s internal system, and if it affects the fish and what the fish eat and swim in, it also affects the birds and what the birds eat and swim in. Oh, and the otters too.    

          Litter also has adverse effects on the habitats of animals of Ship Creek. Clean habitat is necessary for proper breeding and natural life cycles. Due to its vast array of colors, shapes, and sizes, garbage also resembles diverse food sources of interested animals. Curious and hungry birds will sample discarded candy wrappers, pop lids and tabs, and packaging. Determined fish will eat small bits of litter floating in their path of travel.  Snapped fishing line and lost lures can entangle birds and ensnare fish. As their habitat becomes more strewn with waste, it becomes more important that we take the initiative to clean up debris.          

          Even if one does not fish in Ship Creek, taking the initiative to clean up the creek allows the city to focus its efforts on beautifying other areas of Anchorage.  Please join in the protecting of one of Anchorage’s important resources, Ship Creek, for a clean-up date on the third Saturday of September, from 1-5pm. One need bring only a warm pair of boots, we will bring the gloves and bags.  Just a few hands in a few hours can clean up Ship Creek to keep the waters and beaches clean, to keep animals safe, and to maintain their habitats. Because remember, we can’t eat plastic bottles.

Essay #1: REVISION

  Living on Fallen Ground

By: Kimberlyn Sheldon

English 213: Writing for the Environment

Although, to some people, erosion seems slow moving, the natural phenomenon causes distress in many arctic-Alaskan villages because trees fall into the water, graves that were once on hillsides have slid into the lakes, and our beaches begin to disappear. In some cases erosion even forces whole communities to stop their lives, pack up their homes, and relocate. Villages on the coast, such as Shishmaref, Alaska, which have been inhabited for hundred years, are facing the possible relocation of their village due to drastic erosion. Houses have already been lost to the receding coast line. Shishmaref is not the only place suffering. The people of the affected villages cannot let erosion change their lives.
The natural process of erosion eats away at our river banks, hillsides, and quite frankly, our lives. Graves have fallen into lakes, houses in places like Shishmaref that used to be a safe distance from the water are now only yards from falling in themselves. Hillsides are swallowed by our rivers, and cliffs that have eroded heavily pose a threat to boaters and campers. On many hillsides the ground has eroded very badly and the tundra that covered the dirt still hangs out a few feet above the rivers. This can be an extremely dangerous area. People who do not realize that they are not on stable ground would find out the hard way. There has also been a few cases in which a person searching for valuable ivory and old items in the eroded cliff sides have had the ground above them collapse on top of their heads. Eroded areas can be very deadly, and the inhabitants of the land must make an effort to fight against this growing problem.
In my village we are beginning to see the effects of slow-moving but very substantial erosion. Many of the graves that fell were retrieved and reburied, but this took a lot of work. The permafrost not but a few feet from the surface makes it a very backbreaking job to dig a wide grave deep into the ground. No one should have to bury a loved one twice. One of our beaches used for our boats, swimming and fishing has changed dramatically. The swimming area on this beach is named “Ukaaqs” for the most obvious reason possible; Ukaaq means to erode. In the 1990′s, cement blocks held together by cable were put on one of our river banks in order to preserve it. This has made an immense difference; the beach is still wide enough to play softball on in the summer, and to provide a place for the locals to park their boats. The cross country team is even able to train on the beach because it has been preserved so well by the cement blocks. If action had not been taken by the citizens of Noorvik, the wide beach may not have been so wide any longer. Noatak, Alaska has also earned bragging rights in the field of erosion fighting. In Noatak bags of cement were placed at the bottom of a hillside that had been eroding very quickly. These bags have saved this spot of land from falling into their slim river. These stories go to tell that erosion is not impossible to fight.
More money, time, and effort should be poured into projects that aid the villages in their battle against erosion. Not only do the devastating changes in land mean adaption, but it also means an unneeded amount of back-breaking work, a loss of money, and unnecessary sorrow. Relocating entire villages inland costs a very large sum. Even if the government pays for the costs no country should need to resort to this. In this day and age, having the largest superpower in the world, one would think that the United States would be able to provide technology and support to even its weakest link. Citizens of the devastated villages and towns must make their voices heard in order to stop erosion. Sitting around and complaining about the problem will never solve it, only hard work and determination can. Erosion very clearly causes lives to be destroyed, and I would like this essay to push people to take substantial action against it. Together we can make a difference.

Research Draft 2: Ethanol is Not Cool

Ethyl alcohol, more commonly known as Ethanol, is the most widespread type of alcohol you will find on the market today. Currently, it is often used in fuels, beverages, and solvents. In recent years, a desire to lower our need for foreign oil has driven the demand for this alcohol and its use as a biofuel. Producing ethanol from corn is a complicated and costly process involving converting starch into sugar, fermenting, distilling, and separating. There are two common blends of ethanol fuel in use today. E10 is composed of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. E85 is composed of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Running a vehicle on pure ethanol is not conventional. Ethanol is incredibly common in Midwestern states because of the agricultural sector in the surrounding areas. Ethanol is also produced in other areas around the world from different crops such as sugar cane. The seemingly increased popularity of these fuel blends is largely due to new government mandates in the United States requiring its use. Although the use of corn based ethanol in vehicles may seem like a good idea, the actual benefit to the environment and vehicles is almost nothing. Ethanol production is wasteful, bad for vehicles, and too expensive.

One of the most important things to consider in any production process is the efficiency of the process. An inefficient process should be examined and fixed. Ethanol used in the US largely comes from corn. Corn is also a food. Food under no circumstance should ever be used to fuel vehicles. What is basically happening when we use ethanol to power a vehicle is we are burning food. Burning food to power vehicles is unsustainable. Right now, a large percentage of corn is also used for livestock feed. Together, corn that is destined for ethanol manufacturing and livestock feed raises the price for the corn that is sold as food. False demand for ethanol creates an inflated supply which would not exist without mandates.

Growing corn requires vast amounts of land. The amount of land required to produce a single gallon of ethanol is staggering. A crop of corn must be planted, grown, harvested, processed, and then be turned into ethanol. Each step involves time, money, and energy. The total cost which is required to produce ethanol is higher than comparable fuels, which is why the government must subsidize the production in order to keep the price competitive. These subsidies result in the desire to keep the price of ethanol down and the need to support the agricultural sector. One gallon of ethanol only contains about 1905 BTUs while a gallon of gas contains about 2830 BTUS (Wald, 2007). When we look at the amount of energy required to produce ethanol is becomes clearly apparent that it is not an efficient process. Simply heating ethanol in the various steps of production requires 36,000 BTUs of energy which only produces 80,000 BTUs of energy in the resulting barrel of ethanol (Wald, 2007).

Ethanol is not good for vehicles. An internal combustion engine that is designed for gasoline cannot run pure ethanol. Most conventional modern new vehicles that are sold in the US today are capable of running with at most a 10% ethanol blend. Any vehicle that is over 15-20 years old and uses a carburetor cannot run anything more than a 10% ethanol blend. These types of vehicles will usually be able to run an ethanol blend of about 5%. Engines must be designed to run on different fuels. Burning ethanol blends in vehicles is not efficient compared with conventional petrochemical fuels. E10 and E85 especially contain less energy and will result in increased fuel usage and more frequent refueling.

State government mandates requiring the manufacture and sale of ethanol compliant engines have resulted in an increase in availability of these types of vehicles. Many people buy a new vehicle not realizing it is a “flex-fuel” vehicle and can run on E85 or gasoline. The majority of the existing vehicles on the road are not E85 compatible. Research and development costs of E85 compatible engines are passed directly onto the consumer who buys the vehicle. Because ethanol has a lower energy density compared with gasoline, fuel efficiency is lowered and every gallon of ethanol will give you less miles traveled. A higher cost of fuel is not something that consumers are interested in.

Ethanol is more expensive than other fuels. Compared with a gasoline powered car, a vehicle running E85 will achieve 15% less miles per gallon. All together E85 will be 8% more expensive (“True” 2006). The entire process of producing ethanol is more expensive than gasoline. Consumers may not be able to tell the difference when pumping fuel into their car but if the total costs over the long term are looked at it is readily obvious because of lower miles per gallon.

Environmental damage and health issue are other issues which must be considered. With government mandated corn-based ethanol production, a false demand is forced on the economy. While ethanol is technically a sustainable fuel, the entire process involved in production is just as bad if not worse than any other petrochemical process. Plants that manufacture ethanol produce methanol, carbon monoxide, and carcinogens which are pumped into the atmosphere (Miller, 2007).

A study that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that if every vehicle in the United States was running on E85, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and ozone levels in the atmosphere would increase. Butadiene and benzene levels would decrease (Hampton, 2007).  Ethanol is not any safer or cleaner than regular gasoline. Many people submit to a false sense of approval over the use of this fuel because it is renewable. Subsidies are enough of an incentive for farmers to switch from growing other types of food and start growing corn targeted for ethanol production.

The cost to our economy is enormous. Creating subsidies and paying them to corn farmers destroys the natural balance of the agricultural sector’s supply and demand. These subsidies result in an artificially low price for this commodity. Government subsidies are paid for by taxes, just like any other spending. Therefore, this artificially low ethanol price is not really low; we are all paying for this, even if we choose not to use it.

Blending ethanol into gasoline is an inefficient method of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. While we have not reached peak oil yet, oil reserves are not sustainable and will eventually run out. There are other methods available today that can help lengthen the availability of oil. With increased fuel economy standards today’s engines are more fuel efficient than ever before. Other technologies such as electric propulsion, hydrogen, natural gas, and biodiesel are better alternatives. There is absolutely no good reason to use ethanol in fuel blends that are destined for vehicles. If there is another option when comparing ethanol to another fuel source, the other source is usually the better choice. Ethanol production is expensive and wasteful. We must end these subsidies and government mandates which require ethanol use. Until there is a better option than gasoline, diesel, or other petroleum based fuels, ethanol should be kept out of our fuel supply.

Aillery, M., Weinberg, M., & Malcolm, S. A. (2009, November). Ethanol and a Changing Agricultural Landscape. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR86/ERR86.pdf

Brasher, P. (2011, September 19). Tight grain supplies bring calls to weaken ethanol mandates. USA Today, p. 06b.

Cavalcanti, M., Szklo, A., Machado, G., & Arouca, M. (2012). Taxation of automobile fuels in Brazil: Does ethanol need tax incentives to be competitive and if so, to what extent can they be justified by the balance of GHG emissions?. Renewable Energy: An International Journal, 37(1), 9-18. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.06.005

Cooper, C., Huff, S., Knoll, K., Orban, J., Thomas, J., & West, B. (2009). Effects of Mid-Level Ethanol Blends on Conventional Vehicle Emissions. Retrieved from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46570.pdf

Dalidd, J. (2010, November 30). Al Gore admits supporting corn ethanol subsidies was a mistake [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://green.autoblog.com/2010/11/30/al-gore-admits-supporting-corn-ethanol-subsidies-was-a-mistake/

Davidson, S. (2004). Ethanol what’s it all about?. Ecos, (119), 14-18. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

Demirbas, A., & Gupta, R. B. (2010). Gasoline, Diesel and Ethanol Biofuels from Grasses and Plants. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Glynn, M. (2011, September 16). Future of biofuels seen as hinging on long-term strategy. The Buffalo News, p. 5b

Hampton, T. (2007). Ethanol-Fueled Vehicles Could Pose Health Risk. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 297(19), 2068. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

Hilton, B. B., & Duddy, B. B. (2009). The effect of E20 ethanol fuel on vehicle emissions. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers — Part D — Journal of Automobile Engineering (Professional Engineering Publishing), 223(12), 1577-1586. doi:10.1243/09544070JAUTO1188

Kim, S., & Dale, B. E. (2005). Environmental aspects of ethanol derived from no-tilled corn grain: nonrenewable energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Biomass & Bioenergy, 28(5), 475-489. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.11.005

Loveday, E. (2011, September 30). U.S. ethanol output dips to lowest level in 2011 [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://green.autoblog.com/2011/09/30/u-s-ethanol-output-dips-to-lowest-level-in-2011/

Miller, S. (2007). E85 is Running on Fumes. Brandweek, 48(32), 28. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

Thomas, C. (2011, September 25). Biofuels from boom to bust to business. St. Joseph News-Press, p. A2.

True or False: Ethanol Is Cheaper. (2006). Money, 35(9), 24. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

Wald, M. L. (2007). IS ETHANOL FOR THE LONG HAUL?. Scientific American, 296(1), 42-49. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Essay #3: Cleaning Up

Cleaning Up

by:  Kimberlyn Sheldon

English 213

Writing for the Environment

 

A crumpled up candy wrapper, a crushed soda pop can, a store bag hanging from the spiny willows, I observe these items soiling the beauty of my small Alaskan village. Our majestic surroundings were not meant to be littered with unnatural waste. I feel pride when telling people where I am from, and how I have been raised to appreciate my tiny community filled with dirt roads surrounded mountains, rivers, and tundra in our backyard. I do not feel pride when I see trash spread over the tundra. Although it is very easy to dismiss our growing litter problem, the senior class of Aqqaluk High should get together for a community clean up day because our streets are extremely littered, the trash can end up in our waters, affecting our fish, and a beautiful community is always best.

First, I will have to convince my entire senior class, which actually is a very small amount, to sacrifice their time to clean up our village. The best time for a planned pick-up day is after the snow has all melted and the garbage from last Fall is exposed.  The temperature will be bearable and the sun will be back from its lengthy vacation. Not to mention, everyone will be hyped up on the fact that our ticket out of here is right around the corner.

With everyone in great spirits I would need to hold a senior class meeting and sweet talk everyone into helping everyone make Noorvik a better place. Donation letters to local businesses would be written in order to buy supplies such as trash bags, plastic gloves, and art supplies to advertise the event. Letters would be sent to people that are likely to volunteer their time to cook and donate food items for a small potluck in honor of the trash collectors.

To make a real, lasting impact on the cleanliness of the community, as much area as possible would need to be covered in the time given. Most likely, about ten seniors and 5-10 staff members would be guaranteed to show up. This would give us at the very least, fifteen people; with fifteen people we could cover most of our very small village of 700 plus people. I would split the group into teams of two. Each team would be assigned a section of the village that they would focus on cleaning. The donated money and supplies, most businesses in my village are known for giving to a worthy cause, would be split between teams. Different colored trash bags would be used for different types of waste. Non-recyclable waste would be in one color, recyclable items would be placed in the other. To motivate the group a little more a special reward would be given to the team that collected the most trash. Drinks and snacks would be provided by my family, my parents own a store, in order to keep our environmentally friendly “family” full of energy.

Our group would gather at a set time in the evening to evaluate the collection. The bags with recyclable waste inside would be sent out to a organization that could make good use out of it. The non-recyclable waste would go to up-cycling organizations such as TerraCycle.com. After separating goods, and preparing the waste to be sent out, our party of volunteers would gather at the local community building for a celebration. Everyone would be welcome, and food would be served. Our community building is very humble in looks and size, but when the citizens gathers on happy circumstances in this blue, somewhat aged building good times are always in store.

The day would be hard, sweat inducing, and probably somewhat tedious, but this would soon be forgotten when the fruits of our labors are exposed. So much good can come from a single day filled with good people reaching out and working together. Our beloved dirt roads, majestic golden brown tundra, and glistening rivers would benefit greatly. Fish and wildlife would have much healthier living conditions as a result. Much less non-edible waste items would make their way into natural habitats of fish, moose, caribou and many other animals. Not only would the animals benefit from a trash-pickup day, but the people of Noorvik would also. The village would be restored to it’s original beauty, and the lives of the people would be that much brighter. Picking up trash, and making the effort to throw away litter may seem like a small contribution, but it will have great rewards for all.

Essay #3: There is no garbage in the world, only resource which is misplaced.

   The modern life style decides we are producing trash every day. Think about the rubbish in the kitchen. After cooking dinner, the dustbin will be full and we need to throw them every day. It is hard for us to calculate how much trash we are making every day. If we do not recycle the trash, our energy and resource will become less and less. We must recycle those “waste” resources and we also need to care about garbage classification, because most rubbish can be recycled. As the most common trash, we should care more about recycling bottles. Although we have already done well in garbage classification, we should set a unique dustbin to recycle all bottles in the Wickersham hall because bottles are the common trash in the daily life, most of the bottle can be recycled, and it can improve the recycle efficiency.

We need drink water, coffee or juice every day, especially in the summer. When we are walking on the street or shopping in the market, it is easy to find someone holding a bottle around us. The bottle may come from the vending machine, the Starbucks or some fast food restaurant. This also happens in the Wickersham. The wood center and vending machines on the first floor offer a good environment to produce those bottle trashes. On the other hand, soft drinks are very cheap in the market and they are often sold by a case. It means there are many potential bottle trashes in the life. In the Wickersham hall, only a few people will cook by themselves but everyone has some bottle trashes. So the best way is to manage those trashes and do well in garbage classification, especially for those bottles.

Why do I focus on the bottle? It is because most of bottles can be recycled. It is easy for us to throw all the rubbish together. If all the rubbish can be recycled, there will be no classification. So if we throw those unrecyclable trashes and recycle trashes together, it hard for us to separate them and it is also a kind of waste. Most of the companies have realized it and they decide to use recycle martial to make most of bottles. For example, coke can be seen as one of the most common soft drink in the world. The Coca-Cola Company always uses tin cans or plastic bottles. Both of them can be recycled easily. Another martial is paper. It is common to see paper cups or paper bottles in most of restaurants. Paper is light and can be recycled easily. Only a few drinks using glass bottles, and glass bottle is hard to recycle. For example, the Starbucks uses glass bottles. It is easy for the glass to smash to pieces. In the Wickersham hall, we often buy some drinks from the wood center or the Lola Tilly, and all of cups are made by paper and most of bottles are made by plastic. So all of these bottles and cups can be recycled, and set up a unique dustbin in the Wickersham is helpful for garbage classification.

The last reason is this unique dustbin can improve the recycle efficiency in the Wickersham. The first floor can be seen as the playroom in the Wickersham, and the vending machines are also in the first floor. Most people will buy soft drinks from vending machines, and they will throw those empty bottles to the dustbin. Although the dustbin in the first floor is always full of bottles, there is also a little unrecyclable trash in the dustbin. It makes garbage classification become harder. So put a unique dustbin in the first floor will improve the efficient of recycling. At the same time, it is hard for us to separate trash in our dorm. It is hard for us to throw all recycled trash in one dustbin, and the other trash in another dustbin. But we can throw all bottles in on dustbin. There is no public dustbin in the Wickersham, so a unique dustbin can help us to classify the trash.

In essence, the best way to classify the trash and recycle the trash is to let everybody pay attention to the garbage classification. There will be a huge amount of work to separate different trash. This bottle dustbin just makes us to realize how much trash we are making every day and how important the garbage classification it is. After all, there is no garbage in the world, only resource which is misplaced.

 

 

Work cited

 

Coca-Cola. (2011, November 24). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 09:45, November 27, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coca-Cola&oldid=462319051

 

Essay #3: Save the Electricity, Save the World

Electricity is one of the most important energies in people’s daily life. Without electricity, life will be tough and boring. We could only use candles for illumination and firewood for cooking. There would be not PCs, no TVs, and even no radios. Electricity brings us a great life and it is an affordable energy. The local electricity price in Fairbanks is about 16 cent per Kilowatt-hour. However, the waste of electricity is a serious problem in Wickersham hall. When you walking outside the Wickersham hall at midnight, you still could see many lights are still remaining on even nobody is in the room and many computers are remaining on when on one is using them. These waste actions might seem small, but they will affect the local and global environment. Although the electricity is not very expensive, residents in Wickersham Hall should save the electricity because it can make the planet more sustainable, it can help reduce pollution, and it can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There are many reasons for saving electricity in Wickersham Hall. Now it is the time for our residents in Wickersham Hall to do something in saving our own planet. We could stick electricity saving slogan above all the light switch in Wickersham Hall and post electricity saving advice on the announcement boards on every floor. Saving electricity is very important and will have great effort in making our planet more beautiful.

       The electricity we are using is mainly converted by other kinds of energies, especially fossil fuels. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the most of the common fuel that used for electricity generation is coal sharing 45% of the U.S electricity energy, which is about 4 trillion Kilowatt-hours. Fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum are not renewable. Once they are used, the total resources of them are reduced. There will be one day that the earth is running out of fossil fuel. As the relationship between coal and electricity is shown above, saving energy could reduce the demand of local electricity which means saving fossil fuels that used in generating electricity, and saving fossil fuels means reducing the speed of running out of energy which means making our planet more sustainable. This could give us more time to change our energy resources from fossil fuels to renewable energies such as wind energy, tide waves, and geothermal energy, which are almost unlimited in amount. So saving electricity could make the planet more sustainable. Residents in Wickersham Hall could contribute to it with our own effort.

Electricity is mainly generated from burning coal. Coal as we all know is not a clean energy. During the digging and converting progress, coal will cause many environmental problems such as toxic solid or water wastes and sulfuric or nitric gases emission. According to the department of the interior, vast damage to waterways can be attributed to the extraction of coal. Coal extraction may very well be the leading the source of water pollution today. Saving electricity could dramatically reduce the coal demand which could reduce the pollution caused by coal extraction. Saving electricity could also reduce the amount of coal been used. Sulfuric or nitric gases generated from the coal burning process are the most important contributors to acid rain. This is the most harmful pollution to the local area, especially for agriculture and fishing and will cause skin cancer. Saving electricity can help reducing these kinds of pollution.

As discussed before, wasting electricity means burning more coal. This can lead to another global environmental problem: The Greenhouse Effect. Fossil fuels such as coal that used to generate electricity are mainly consist large amount of carbon and hydrogen. When converting them into electricity, a greenhouse gas-carbon dioxide is released. The greenhouse gas will contribute to greenhouse effect and cause global warming. Global warming is a serious environmental problem that could bring about ice cap melting, sea level rising, species extinction, and droughts. Saving electricity could help the world by reducing the greenhouse gas emission. This is what we could do to save our planet.

Saving electricity can make our lives better. Saving the electricity is not difficult. Just by turn off the light when leaving the room, turn off computer when finish the work, unplug electronic devices when finish recharging and etc. Everyone in Wickersham hall can make it. By the friendly reminders and effective information, the every resident in Wickersham hall will realize the importance of saving electricity and will make their own efforts to save our planet.

Essay 3 Proposal – Lighting the Way: One light bulb at a time

 Essay 3 Proposal – Lighting the Way: One light bulb at a time

Kimberly Johnson

English 213

 

Many Americans are hearing ways to lower emissions, conserve energy and protect the planet. One simple method is commonly overlooked as a useful solution for lowering emissions and conserving energy for the planet. Traditional Light bulbs are used for lighting nearly everywhere around the world. This major use worldwide gives rise to a need for more efficient means for lighting the world using light bulbs. Switching to energy efficient light bulbs is a more productive method for everyone to follow. It is simple and gives large results despite many people feeling switching a light bulb is not vary helpful as a solution to conserving and lowing emissions for the world. It has been found according to the U.S Environmental Protection Agency that if every American just replace one light bulb with an energy efficient light bulb that the results that would occur is enough energy to light 3 million homes for a year. As well as save roughly 600 million in annual energy costs and prevent 9 billion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions per year.  Results such as these demonstrate the usefulness of the movement for people to switch light bulbs with energy efficient light bulbs. Everyone should participate in switching traditional light bulbs to the alternative energy efficient light bulbs.  Although the office of AMG at UAF is small, if employees take the initiative to switch the office light bulbs to energy efficient bulbs it would create high quality use of electricity switching can create environmental advantages because it would lower emissions, save energy and allow for the saved energy to be used in different areas.

The energy used throughout the world continues to rise and affect the environment. By switching to high-energy efficient light bulbs everyone can contribute to providing a solution to the damages that are occurring to the environment due to human-made use of energy. Energy efficient light bulbs use less energy then what are traditional used. Energy efficient light bulbs also last a lot longer then traditional bulbs and produce less heat, which increases safety standards for light bulbs as well. These benefits show that switching light bulbs to energy efficient light bulbs is beneficial and should be done. Lowering greenhouse gases is commonly known to be important for the environment. Human-made pollution is continuing to rise and effect the environment negatively.  Energy efficient light bulbs are a constructive solution to lowering emissions. The office called Advanced Materials Group (AMG) at UAF is a small research office. There are four employee offices in this building with roughly twenty traditional light bulbs. If this office changes just the office lights it would bring environmental and economic benefits. This initiative taken by employee would lower emission created from greenhouse gases.

The use of energy efficient lighting will also allow the office to save money and energy. Energy efficient light bulbs conserve energy. Conserving energy lowers the amount of greenhouse gas emissions.  Since traditional light bulb do not last as long switching light bulbs with energy efficient light bulbs is a great way to conserve energy since they last so much longer and use less energy to produce the same function as traditional light bulbs.

Conserving energy and lowering emission is not the only benefit for switching to energy efficient light bulbs but also demonstrates why AMG office should participate as well. The energy saved allows the energy that would otherwise be wasted in traditional lighting to be reallocated to other energy needs. Reallocating energy is a great way to use conserved energy.

Lowering emissions, conserving energy and allowing energy to not be wasted and used in other areas instead of lighting demonstrate the promise that energy efficient lighting brings. The office has only a few offices and each member could easily change the light bulbs with an energy efficient light bulb in there own office. It would be a simple way for the employees to lower emission costs, protecting the planet from harmful greenhouse gases.

Save energy and reallocate what would have been wasted on lighting to be used in different areas for energy needs. Switching lighting is simple and would not need to be done often since energy efficient light bulbs last much longer then traditional lighting. AMG can easily participate in an easily attainable solution to help the environmental damage that is currently happening. Current lighting systems around that Nation are wasting energy and producing large amounts of greenhouse gases. If AMG takes a small step it can bring forward great advantages to the environment while saving money in lighting as well as save time by not needing to switch lighting as often.  Taking incentive to move away from the use of traditional lighting to energy efficient lighting is easy and beneficial.

 

 

Light bulbs for consumers. Retrieved from U.S Environmental Protection Agency website: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGroup&pgw_code=LB