Revision – Essay 3 Proposal – Recycling: Maybe a challenge but we are ready!

Essay 3 Proposal – Recycling: Maybe a challenge but we are ready!

My dear Fairbanksans:

Fairbanks is a city that is not in the mind of too many people, either because they don’t care, they haven’t heard about it, or because we are too far.  It is time for us, Fairbanksans, to take action, we have to do our part, and save our state.  Although many think recycling is not economically feasible in Fairbanks, people should set up recycling collection points around businesses and workplaces because we need to raise concern in individuals, facilitate access to recycling, and educate them on the importance of recycling.

You may remember those times when recycling was really popular; currently recycling is not in everybody’s mind, so what about remembering those times while helping with a little recycling too?  There are states or countries where recycling is really important and has become a way of life, part of their customs, while there is others states or countries where recycling is not important at all.  We are trying to bring the recycling euphoria back, beginning in our state, which is why there will be a group of people setting up collection points.  These collection points will be accessible for everybody.  Look for the appropriate recycle bin and place the right items in there.  Every other day, or as deemed necessary, we will pick up the recycle materials and we would bring them to the Fairbanks Rescue Mission or to the correct collecting points.  There is even a program for electronics.  We would collect any electronic materials that you may have, and store them until pick up time, every third Friday of the month.

Awareness is the main point; if we reduce, reuse and recycle, we will do our part and we will reduce the amount of waste that is thrown in the world.  We don’t have to start big; we can start with our state, and after we see some results we will go from there.  People believe recycling is complicated and avoid traveling distances to get to recycling points.  Now there will be no excuse; with collection points around the corner of everybody’s job, or place of residence recycling will be easy and convenient.  By recycling aluminum cans, less aluminum will be needed since it will be used instead of going to waste, and cans once again will become, aluminum cans.  We will  used them as such, decreasing the amount of waste; by recycling paper we will save millions of trees that will help absorb carbon monoxide from the air, instead of creating six times as much by burning it.  By recycling plastic, there will be less waste materials in the oceans, and we will waste less energy; with the recycling of glass we will also save energy, and there will be less air and water pollution since glass takes a long time to break down.  Recycling will not just help some people; at the end it will help us all.

Help the earth, help the world, help your state, help Alaska, and most important of all help your city, help Fairbanks.  Fairbanks is where we live, where our children are growing and where we want to be.  Every person goes through plenty of plastic bottles, magazines, newspapers, sodas, beers, etc.  This creates large amounts of waste.  Don’t dispose of glass, aluminum, and plastics in just any container; classify them, keep them together, and bring them with you; you will see the right place to dispose of them while helping the environment too.  If our program works, we may be able to keep on adding collection points making it easier, little by little.

Remember, taking care of our world is not just somebody’s responsibility, it is everybody’s job.  Look for the collection points.  I can guarantee you that you will not need to look too far; they will be near you.  Talk to your friends and family members; tell them of the importance of recycling, and how easy it has become.  We know that it may be a little hard at first, but once we get used to it, this will be like anything else.  I remember how hard it was to drive my trash to the dumpsters.  Now we don’t even think about it; we just know it is time to go.  This would be the same thing, and one day recycling will be done without even thinking about it.  Come on!  Participate!  Let’s keep a cleaner world for all to enjoy.

We will welcome your questions, suggestion, and help.  Please don’t hesitate to contact “We Care, recycling group” at 907-xxx-xxxx.

Essay 1 Cause/Effect – Recycling: GREENS and Benefits

Every day we all have waste to dispose of: a wrapper from a food item, an empty box of cereal, a beverage can, papers of all sorts, and so many other items we no longer have use for.  What we do with the everyday waste can differ from person to person, household to household, and even within businesses and offices.  There are two common ways to get rid of all that trash.  Trash can simply be thrown away into a trashcan.  Trash can also be separated and then recycled.  The implications of each act, throwing trash into a trashcan or recycling trash, can have very different affects on the environment. Although discarding used materials with the trash is simple, recycling should become a daily habit because recycling cuts down on greenhouse gases, saves natural resources, and saves our community’s land and money.

Greenhouse gas is a commonly referenced type of pollution, and is a very popular subject in today’s world.  It is well known that vehicles are culprits in contributing to air pollution, but vehicles are not the only contributors to air pollution.  Among different contributors to air pollution is trash; however, when trash is recycled it helps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases produced and released into the environment (US EPA, 2012).  Trash in landfills create methane gas while trash that is incinerated creates carbon dioxide, both are greenhouse gases (US EPA, 2007).  Recycling limits the amount of trash that ends up in the landfills and incinerators, cutting down on the production of greenhouse gases associated with each form of trash disposal.  In 2010, recycling in the United States resulted in a savings in over “186 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions” (US EPA, 2011), which is similar to having around “36 million passenger vehicles” emissions eliminated (US EPA, 2011). Recycling takes trash can significantly reduce greenhouse gas pollution; it also provides material for making new products.

Everything purchased and used in daily life is a product of some sort.  Every product has been created through processes that take a material or materials and make something that can be used.  The sources of the materials used to make products can be recyclable materials or raw materials.  The act of recycling helps to protect natural resources, which make up the raw materials (US EPA, 2012).  Without the availability of recyclable materials, raw materials would be the only means of resource for making products.  This in turn, depletes the environment of natural resources.  By recycling more trash and throwing out less, the negative impact on natural resources can be curbed, also helping to maintain a sustainable environment (US EPA, 2012a).  Recycling can have a major impact on the natural resources and a community’s land and money.

When trash is hauled away from the curbside or a transfer site, it goes to a landfill.  Although landfills have standards they must abide by, like location restrictions, requirements for composite liners, post closure maintenance and other regulations (US EPA, 2012b), there still stands the risk of environmental contamination of landfills.  Natural disasters and human error can lead to the possibility of waste contamination; landfills are not impenetrable or immune to disaster or mistakes.  Recycling limits the amount of trash that ends up in the landfills, reducing the amount of waste contribution to environmental contamination if such unfortunate events were to happen.  Even more, the US EPA (2012b) reports that there are household items that may be banned from a community’s landfill due to the fact that the items, such as cleaners, are considered hazardous, and can have a negative impact on the environment if not handled and disposed of properly.  It seems very likely that many of possible hazardous items could already be in landfills currently in use and will probably continue to have these items added to landfills, not from neglect so much as from lack of awareness.  Since recycling results in less waste in landfills, it also can help prolong the use of a landfill, adding another benefit by not having to start a new landfill where that can end up with hazardous materials and limiting the sites that can possibly cause contamination due to hazardous items or disaster.  Another issue for a community recycling can help elevate is the cost of landfills.  In appendix 6 of Funding Your Solid Waste Management Program, a reference for Alaskan communities about landfills, there are many “major program costs”; included in the costs are opening and closing a landfill along with costs for maintaining a closed landfill.  With all of these costs, it would certainly make sense to add to landfills as little as possible.  The more trash that is recycled, the longer it will take before having to close a landfill.

Each time trash is disposed of, the method used can either be damaging or safe for the environment.  Our environment, natural resources, and community all benefit from the more involved action of recycling instead of just throwing out the trash.  Even though it may take a small amount of extra time to sort the trash for recycling, the benefits of doing so are wide reaching.  With practice, recycling can become as automatic as taking trash to the curb.  With the growing population of the world there is a growing amount of trash, and unless a completely trashed environment in the coming years is desirable, it imperative that recycling become a daily habit and throwing out the trash a remnant idea of the past.

References

Appendix 6: Funding Your Solid Waste Management Program.  (na).  http://www.anthc.org/cs/dehe/sustops/rasc/upload/Appendix%206.pdf

US EPA. (2007, November).  Methodology for Estimation Municipal Solid Waste Recycling Benefits   http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/06benefits.pdf

US EPA. (2011, December).  Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2010.   http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw_2010_rev_factsheet.pdf

US EPA.  (2012a, March 5). Recycling.  Wastes- Resource Conservation- Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.  http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/rrr/recycle.htm

US EPA.  (2012b, April 9).  Landfills.  Wastes- Non-Hazardous Waste- Municipal Solid Waste.  http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill.htm

Essay 3 Revision – Paper or Plastic: How about neither?

“Paper or Plastic?” It’s a simple question, but one that brings a whole pile of environmental controversy with it. Which is better for the environment? What is more practical? The best solution is to not have to decide between them at all. The movement to use reusable bags that are brought back to the store again and again has caught fire but needs help to really take off. This is not a problem that can be put off. It needs to be addressed and we have the technology to easily eliminate the problem. Although convenience may be sacrificed, all shoppers should use reusable grocery bags because plastic bags use precious resources, poison the environment, and harm wildlife.

Between 500 and 1,500 billion plastic shopping bags are used worldwide every year (Clapp, 2009). That’s 15,000 to 45,000 per second! 100 billion are used in the United States alone (3,000 a second). These massive quantities of bags require 12 million barrels of oil to create just the bags for the United States.  That much oil could provide all the power needed by Fairbanks for 5 years! This is an unacceptable waste of resources. An argument could be made that plastic is recyclable and this is true, but plastic film is one of the least desirable materials to recycle. Less than 5% of bags are recycled, the rest go to landfills and the environment (Clapp, 2009).

Whether in the environment or the landfill, the bags take up to 1,000 years to break down, and when they do breakdown, it isn’t a good degradation. Instead of biodegrading, they go through a process called photodegradation. This means they break down to smaller pieces that are more dangerous for wildlife (Clapp, 2009). These tiny pieces infiltrate everything from the soil to the streams to the rivers to the oceans. When 60-80% of marine debris is plastic-based, there is no place for animals to hide. A whole plastic bag can harm a fish in a dramatic way by trapping or suffocating it. After photodegration, the fish can ingest many small pieces of plastic. These toxic plastics work their way up the food chain, and the concentration of plastic pollution increases as more waste is eaten by bigger fish. Eventually, these plastics will reach humans, and their effects on humans are not completely understood. The material of these bags was chosen for cheapness and strength, not environmental toxicity. These subtle hazards are far more deadly than the obvious ones.

Wildlife being harmed by plastics is not an isolated problem. Up to 86% of all sea turtles are affected by plastic debris due to the anatomy of their esophagus. They have a valve that allows the debris in but doesn’t let it out. Other animals have similarly amazingly high cases of plastic poisoning and damage. Plastic bags look very different underwater and are often mistaken for food sources such as jellyfish. When the turtle or fish goes for a meal it can be suffocated, or it can swallow the plastic. The plastic materials then sits in the stomach of the animal for years, taking up space that is needed for real food and nutrients.

So what are some solutions? Many communities worldwide are beginning steps to outlaw plastic bags; plastic bag manufactures are fighting back with biodegradable bags. Studies have shown though that these bags can take up to 3 years to decompose in the ocean (Müller, 2012). That is an unacceptable length of time. The best solution involves bags that don’t need to be disposed of at all. Reusable bags can be used hundreds of times, and every time a plastic bag would be thrown away, the reusable bag saves that oil, that ocean, that turtle. Even with reusable bags there is a difference in materials that should be used. Cotton bags are not the best choice. Cotton is a very destructive crop to grow and harvest. Hemp is a much better alternative than cotton. Hemp is very basic and easy to grow with little pesticides (Gibson, 2008). A hemp bag has little effect on the environment when it is made and when in use. The best part is after a hemp bag has been worn out, it will readily decompose.

By switching to reusable bags, (preferably hemp) every shopper can make a difference in the health of the environment and its inhabitants. The raw materials that are wasted on bags can be put to better uses and create wealth. The environment will benefit greatly from the stop of plastic debris pollution, and all the creatures of the world will profit. Just by using a reusable bag over and over, every shopper can save the world.

 

References

Clapp, J., & Swanston, L. (2009). Doing away with plastic shopping bags: international patterns of norm emergence and policy implementation. Environmental Politics, 18(3), 315-332. doi:10.1080/09644010902823717

Gibson, K. (2008). The Bag Idea. Journal Of Industrial Hemp, 13(1), 73-77. doi:10.1080/15377880801898741

Müller, C., Townsend, K., & Matschullat, J. (2012). Experimental degradation of polymer shopping bags (standard and degradable plastic, and biodegradable) in the gastrointestinal fluids of sea turtles. Science Of The Total Environment, 416464-467. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.10.069

Essay 2 Book Review Revision – Cradle to Cradle: Clean Creation and Clean Destruction

Most people want to help protect and preserve the environment. There are many views on how to best do this, and most focus on reducing use of natural materials and recycling what can be saved. While the idea is admirable, these actions can cause more harm than good. Recycling materials that were not designed to be recycled leads to the use of hazardous materials in the process and less value in the end product. Although Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Micheal Braungart defies current environmental thinking, it is an eye-opening book because it reveals the incorrect policies of the past, the fatal flaws of the present generation, and improved strategies for the future.

In the past, industry was purely driven by profit and the bottom line, but times have changed. The industrial revolution was a dirty time of mass production and environmental sacrifice (McDonough & Braungart, 2003, p. 30). This lead to an environment polluted by byproducts and the creation of products that were designed to be cheap to make. However, this idea of cheap production does not take into account the environmental and social cost of these dangerous products. When these costs are considered, the flaws in the former way of thinking become apparent. The unimaginable amounts of toxic byproducts and the amount of money invested in useless waste are huge costs that hurt industry and the environment. A system that feeds off of the Earth without giving anything in return goes against all of nature and can only lead to destruction.

The present social environment focuses on the model of reduce, reuse, recycle, and regulate. Reducing the amount of products used and thus the waste and toxins created by those products does not help fix the problem; it just puts off the inevitable outcome, a barren, toxic Earth devoid of resources. Reusing products also helps in the short run, but fails to address the real problems. Even after reusing a product it still is discarded and those valuable materials are lost. Recycling tries to address this problem of lost materials. In reality, materials are still lost as most recycling is actually down-cycling; where a material is recovered in a less valuable state. Water bottles are melted down but the plastics are degraded in the process. These cannot be used for bottles again, but have to be used as artificial turf or other products that can be made with weaker materials. Also, the byproducts of recycling can be much worse than the byproducts of the original production. The harsh chemicals and processes can release more toxins than if the product was just thrown away (McDonough & Braungart, 2003, p. 56). These chemicals and other byproducts released by the production and recycling have been released in such quantities that it required governmental regulation of the environmental effects of industry. The constant battle between environmentalists and industry has created a polarized view; environmental considerations directly fight profit and success. This could not be further from the truth. Factories made to be pleasant to work in and environmentally friendly have shown an ability to entice workers and save millions of dollars. Ford Motor Company has redesigned its factories with the help of input from the authors. In one particular instance, they saved over 50 million dollars just from using environmentally helpful sewer systems. As McDonough and Braungart point out, a balanced view that considers all issues of economy, equity and ecology is needed (McDonough & Braungart, 2003, p. 150). If even one of these issues is valued more than the others than the whole decision-making process is flawed and any solutions will be invalid, useless, and harmful.

However, if a proper system is used to come to logical and truly low cost processes, then real change and improvement can be made. A five step process to create better products is presented, which includes: getting rid of known environmental culprits, following informed personal preferences, creating a list of categorized products by environmental impact, using the list to redesign products using safer materials, and finally completely reinventing the product (McDonough & Braungart, 2003, p. 165). The end result is not an improved product with a reduced impact, but a totally new product designed from the beginning to have minimal impact and be easily broken down. The gradual scale of this process allows for companies to start improving their products now and work up to full scale reinvention of manufacturing. Optimizing the materials used can have major positive improvements of both economic and environmental considerations. By designing with the end of a product’s lifespan in mind products can become truly waste-free. The authors constantly stress the difference between biological nutrients and technical nutrients. These two separate metabolisms – the technical material cycle and the biological cycle – can be used in designs to create products with zero waste, and some that even produce positive byproducts (McDonough & Braungart, 2003, p. 103). Shoes can be designed with biodegradable soles and plastic uppers that separate for disposal. The soles are biodegradable and can be returned to the biological cycle with no waste or toxicity. The plastic uppers can be up-cycled into new shoes or better products because of the pure plastic not degraded by afterthought recycling. By utilizing the nutrient cycles separately the authors can maximize usefulness of the product’s materials and minimize environmental impact. These ideals are just the start to a world vision of closed circle production and consumer loops, where the waste of one process becomes nutrients for the next process.

These changes will not occur overnight, Cradle to Cradle outlines how the needed changes can be made gradually and productively. The authors present their arguments, the facts, their sources, and their solutions in a very organized and effective manner. With the help and consul of McDonough and Braungart we can save our planet. We need to not just work on minimizing or avoiding or reducing waste (McDonough & Braungart, 2003, p. 67). We need to remove waste from the equation completely, so that waste ceases to exist. Just as this book is dedicated to “The children of all species,” we need to focus on solutions that will benefit the children for all time.

 

Reference

McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2003). Cradle to cradle, remaking the way we make things. New York: North Point Pr.

Response #11-15

Response #11-15

Article #1

The very name of the article, How Factory Farms Are Killing Seals, is thought provoking. How can farms be harming sea creatures? Author Tom Philpott reveals an ugly side to farming that the industry wants covered up. This piece is written for anyone who doesn’t want the sea life of our planet to suffer for our need for cheap food. The focus of the article if the fact those bacterial strains that are easily killed by antibiotics get passed around in factory farms. The livestock are then treated with antibiotics but the bacteria are not all killed, it just moves from one animal to another, gaining immunity to the antibiotics. Eventually a super bug is created that makes its way into the ocean by way of animals feces in the watershed. Now a super strong, highly contagious bacterium is in the ocean food chain and spreads into animals. The animals’ immune systems where never designed to handle human enhanced germs and they suffer greatly. The truly scary part is these diseased animals are found in areas humans swim too. So now the problem has come full circle, and humans have to clean up their own mess. The writing itself is short and to the point, this makes the information effective and easily understood and obsorbed by the reader. The environment is already taking a hit for human messiness. Not only did farmers let the super bugs get into the natural environment, they failed to think of the results of craming millions of animals together and trying to kill every germ. There are no real arguments; the path of these bacteria can be traced from farm to seal. What I want to know is what can be done to stop this cycle before the super germs get into humans and we have no way to stop them. This need to be researched as it is a huge problem that we are creating diseases we can’t treat.

Article #2

While the title Navigating a Critical Juncture for Sustainable Weed Management is not the catchiest phrase ever, this article confronts a growing problem that will affect all members of society. Author David Mortensen highlights a growing problem that could destroy our food supply which would bring all of society crashing to a halt. Currently the common way to control weeds in a field of crops is to make those crops resistant to the herbicide that kills all the weeds. If the crop is genetically engineered to not die while a poison kills everything else growing in the field everything works out right? Wrong! The problem is that weeds are growing immune to the herbicide as well. Stronger and stronger chemicals are created to keep up with the weeds evolution. These chemicals pose a greater danger to the surrounding environment by seeping through the ground and casing pollution and other effects that are not completely understood. The article is pretty effective but uses too much wordy language. Simpler language would make the article more accessible to everybody. Again there is not much that can be argued the weeds are getting stronger and farmers have no permanent solutions. A deeper look at the effects of these stronger chemicals in the wild and a look at possible solutions would be greatly beneficial to the case Mortensen is making. If farmers keep going in the direction they are going now the weeds will outgrow the herbicides and humans will not be able to control them.

Article #3

At first I didn’t know what to make of the title of this article; German blue chip firms throw weight behind North African solar project. What does that even mean? Turns out some big companies in Europe are getting to getter to build giant solar plants in Africa and transmit all that power across the sea to Europe. It is a simple sounding plan but one with huge implications for all parties. Author Kate Connolly explores the many pluses and minuses to such a complex plan. The goal is to help all parties and get clean power to Europe. If this plan works it could be replicated around the world and its progress should be watched by all people who want clean energy. The article is effective in that it covers all sides and considers many views. It makes sure the African nations will profit from this new plan as well as the large European companies fronting the bill. The argument were made and countered that the long transmission of power may not be feasible. New technologies allow power to be sent longer distances for cheap and with little loss. The environment will benefit greatly because if the plan works, Europe will suddenly create no pollution to provide power to the many countries and peoples of the continent. I would like more information on how the power will get from one side of the Mediterranean to the other. There are many technical hurdles that must be met that the article does not fully cover.

Video

The movie Collapse hits the viewer like a slap in the face. Director Chris Smith holds back no punches in this movie built around a riveting interview of a prominent investigative journalist, Michael Ruppert. This film is aimed at all Americans who need to wake up and come to terms with the impending collapse of our civilization. Ruppert says that he is trying to reach out and educate people until he reaches “the hundredth monkey.” This saying is referring to a study conducted of monkeys where once a hundred monkeys learned a skill or new way of doing things the rest of the monkeys followed suit. Ruppert’s main point is to reveal the deep rooted problems America faces and to convince the viewer it is time to at and prepare for what is come; the end of the world as we know it. The movie is very effective in portraying the dark implications of what he is saying. The simple basement or bunker the interview takes place in sets a dark forbidding mood right from the beginning. Throughout Ruppert’s testimony videos and news clips show the evidence backing up what he is saying. The filmmakers also put in long blackouts that allowed the words to sink in to the viewer and emphasized important points. Environmentally this film didn’t talk about pollution or global warming specifically; it mainly was about how the environmental restraints, such as a limited amount of oil, are what will end the global economy. There are many counter arguments that are not addressed specifically. Ruppert at one point says he doesn’t do debates because he is right and the facts are with him. This also brings up the argument that this man is a crazy conspiracy theorist. The next thing to research would be to check if his predictions have come true in the past and where he gets his information. A fact check conducted independently by the viewer would add great weight to the words of this man. This movie does bring up a lot of questions and Mr. Ruppert seems to have all the answers, which is hard to believe.

Website

Trash Trip is a website dedicated to exploring waste that has been spread from coast to coast. There are many posts revealing the many deposits and uses of the trash everywhere. It also serves to highlight the massive quantities of valuable resources that go toward handling our trash. The website is very effective, using a blot style of postings and pictures to not just tell of the mess humans have made but also show it. The amount of pollution humans have put into the natural environment is unacceptable and all humans should be concerned. Our society cannot continue this way, we need to reduce our waste and find new ways to deal with the massive piles of trash that are destroying the world we live in. A counter argument is that this trash is not that big compared to the vastness of nature. This may be true if you just consider a bucket of waste just as a piece of trash. What this site points out is the potential for that waste to get in the water supply and contaminate and harm many forms of life. The website has found its focus and fills the role to show that damage our trash has on the world around us. I see no cons to its existence; all of humanity should see that we need to reduce our waste and clean up our planet. I only wish that more websites could show the damage humans have caused and that more people would pay attention.

Response #11-15

Article #11

In the article Captain Charles Moore, Neil Greenberg discusses the ramifications of plastic in our oceans with the man that discovered the great Pacific garbage patch, Captain Charles Moore. The great Pacific garbage patch with discovered in 1997, and while it is not an island of trash, it is a huge area where water of different temperatures mixes. The trash gets swooped up in these currents and if it doesn’t float around on the surface, it sinks to the bottom. Along the way, birds and marine life eat the plastic thinking it’s food. This can cause toxins to leach into the animals and poison them.

The purpose of this article was to inform the public that this problem exists. We go about our lives with blinders on, not thinking about the implications of out actions. I really don’t think that many people know about the great garbage patch. This is detrimental to our environment. Toxins in the water equal toxins in our food. They say, “You are what you eat”. Well, I don’t want to be that.

The only way this is going to turn around is with global knowledge of the problem. Informing the US that there is this problem only helps part of it. The next step after global knowledge is finding an alternative. Charles Moore is right when he says that we have to slowly start a program. People will not like having their convenient plastic taken away, but in the end, it’s better for our world.

References

Greenberg, N. (2009). Captain Charles Moore. Earth Island Journal. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. Vol. 24. Issue 1. p47-50. 4p

Article #12

In the article Eating Mercury, Alexandra Gross discusses the study completed by the FDA that tested 55 random brands of food for mercury. The incredible thing is, 17 out of the 55 had mercury in them and I’m just now reading about this for the first time. Supposedly the process of making high fructose corn syrup requires caustic soda. There are different ways to make this, but a few of the plants are using old technology. The old way of making caustic soda involves mercury and somehow it’s getting into the food products.

I understand from the article that this study was not done on a grand scale, and that is what the high fructose corn syrup companies are going with. They are saying that this was not a formal study by the FDA, just something a few people did, but I say so what! Even if it was a private study, shouldn’t this prompt the FDA to do a large study? From what I’ve been able to find, it doesn’t look like much has become of this problem and that, in and of itself, is a problem.

From further research I found out that while he was Senator, Barack Obama came up with a bill that would get rid of mercury cell technology in these plants. However, I could not find anything that says if he followed through as president. There is nothing that states if mercury cell technology is still being used. This requires further action as high fructose corn syrup is in 90% of products. (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 2009). There’s really no way to completely avoid it. This is very distressing.

References

Gross, Alexandra (2009). Eating Mercury. E: The Environmental Magazine. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. Vol. 20. Issue 3. p19-22. 4p

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. (2009, January 26). High Fructose Corn Syrup’s Not So Sweet Surprise: Mercury! Retrieved from Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy: http://www.iatp.org/blog/2009/01/high-fructose-corn-syrups-not-so-sweet-surprise-mercury

Article #13

In the article Oil Exploration Can Be a Boon To Alaskans and Environment, Don Young explains the benefits of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). He writes about the native Inupiat Eskimos and the modernization that has occurred since oil has been drilled in Prudhoe Bay. I understand that heated schools and modern plumbing are a great benefit, but what about the downsides? I thought that the Young was completely one-sided in his article. He completely failed to talk about the bad things that can happen with oil drilling. He only discussed how small a space the oil drilling would occupy and the amount of money the US would save. Even the ANWR.org website completely supports the idea of drilling.

I am not opposed or for drilling in Alaska because I do not have all of the information, but I do not think it’s ok to publish material that is so one-sided. After reading this, I would be completely onboard to start drilling, but I realized there has to be something bad because there are still 22% of Alaskans that are opposed to it. After some digging, I found out that some of the bad is really bad. By allowing the oil companies into ANWR, it opens up the floodgates for other industrial companies to come in as well. We have the mentality that it’s only a couple thousand acres out of 1.5 million, what’s a few more? We do this until it’s all gone, then we’re up a creek without a paddle. ANWR is one of the last true wilderness areas in the US. By allowing the oil companies in, it jeopardizes a fragile environment.

The research has also shown that the oil fields would not be contained to one small area. There are pipes that need to be run and roads that need to be built. Then there is also housing for the workers (Natural Resouces Defense Council, 2011). The last issue I will bring up is the pollution that comes with drilling for oil. When oil is drilled, there is waste produced. Where does the waste go? Well, BP was fined millions of dollars in 2000 because it was dumping the waste material down the oil shafts. The waste material has chemicals such as benzene and other toxic materials. There is also the large amount of nitrogen and methane that is pumped into the air. It is also almost impossible to prevent spills. Whether this be diesel or oil, it is extremely harmful to the local wildlife and plant life (Miller, 2012).

Whether it is good or bad, the effects of drilling for oil will extend way outside of the 2,000 acres that they want to use. This is a huge matter that should not be decided by a few people reading an article only containing the good facts. The bad are just too bad to ignore.

References

Natural Resouces Defense Council. (2011, 12 19). Arctic Wildlife Refuge: Why Trash an American Treasure for a Tiny Percentage of Our Oil Needs? Retrieved from Natural Resouces Defense Council: http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp

Miller, P. A. (2012). THE IMPACT OF OIL DEVELOPMENT ON PRUDHOE BAY. Retrieved from Arctic Connections: http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/arcticconnections.htm

Young, D. (1995, October 13). Oil exploration can be a boon to Alaskans and environment. Christian Science Monitor. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. p. 18.

Video

To put a patent on life seems unethical, but in the movie The Future of Food that has been shown to have happened. Deborah Koons has shown us that major companies, like Monsanto, have produced seeds that are immune to Round-up. They have then patented the gene so anyone that wants the corn with this gene has to pay a premium. What I think is unethical is that crops cannot be controlled like that. Neighboring farms are being charged with patent infringement because their corn has the Round-up Ready gene in it.  Round-up Ready plants still have pollen and there is still wind and bees in the world. There is no way that they can control where their corn’s pollen goes. It can, and will cross-contaminate other crops.

The Future of Food was a wake up call for me. The fact that four companies are running all the agriculture of the US is disturbing. How can American’s be ok with this? Europeans and some other countries are not. I would like to know what’s in my food. I’m not saying to completely take it off the market, I’m sure there is some good coming from it, but there should be something written on the packaging letting us know what we are eating.

It was also disturbing to find out how many people there are in the government that previously worked for Monsanto. There seems to be a conflict of interest there. I know I’ve stated this in previous reports, but you’re supposed to be able to trust the government and they are making it awfully hard. It past due for American’s to wake up from their dreamy lives and find out what’s really going on. I think they would be shocked to find out what is happening right under their noses.

References

Garcia, D. K. (Director). (2004). The Future of Food [Motion Picture].

Website

I chose to look at the earth911.com website because I have used the website on several occations. I even told people to look here for recycling information in my research paper. The website is easy to navigate and has great environmental information.

The first time I went to the website I was curious about recycling plants. There is an area where you can type in your zipcode and what you want to recycle and it will tell you where the nearest plant is. The only downfall of this feature is that you must be very specific. I typed in Styrofoam and nothing came up, but when I typed in polystyrene I found a local plant. Some people may only know the name brand and will not find what they are looking for.

While on the page I noticed an area for composting information. The information was great; they even had pictures of the products they recommend for composting. There was also a link for sculptures made out of trash that had washed up on the beaches in Oregon. These pictures should be on billboards around the world. There is so much trash it’s scary.

Earth911.com is a great website because they’ve put a lot of information in easy to use pages. The layouts of the pages are colorful and beg to be looked at more. The name is also easy to remember, which is a big deal. It doesn’t do anyone any good to have a great website that no one can remember. I will use this website over and over again in the future as I start to “go green”. It’s a long process, but I think this will be a great source of information.

Resources

Earth911. (2012). Earth911. Retrieved from http://earth911.com/

Essay 3 Proposal – Paper or Plastic: How about neither?

Myles Jellison

Paper or Plastic: How about neither?

 “Paper or Plastic?” It’s a simple question, but one that brings a whole pile of environmental controversy with it. Which is better for the environment? What is more practical? The best solution is to not have to decide between them at all. The movement to use reusable bags you bring back to the store every time you shop has caught fire but needs to be prodded along. This is not a problem that can be put off. It needs to be addressed and we have the technology to easily eliminate the problem. Although convenience may be sacrificed, all shoppers should use reusable grocery bags because plastic bags use precious resources, poison the environment, and harm wildlife.

Between 500 and 1,500 billion plastic shopping bags are used worldwide every year. (Clapp, 2009) That’s 15,000 to 45,000 per second! 100 billion are used in the United States alone (3,000 a second). These massive quantities of bags require 12 million barrels of oil to create just the bags for the United States.  That much oil could provide all power needed by Fairbanks for 5 years! This is an unacceptable waste of resources. An argument could be made that plastic is recyclable and this is true, but plastic film is one of the least desirable materials to recycle. Less than 5% of bags are recycled, the rest go to landfills and the environment (Clapp, 2009).

Once there, both in the environment or the landfill the bags take up to 1000 years to break down and when they do breakdown it isn’t a good degradation. Instead of biodegrading, they go through a process called photodegradation. This means they break down to smaller pieces that are more dangerous for wildlife. (Clapp, 2009) These tiny pieces infiltrate everything from the soil to streams to rivers to the ocean. A whole plastic bag can harm a fish in a dramatic way, by trapping or suffocating it. After photodegration the fish can ingest many small pieces of plastic that work their way up the food chain and their effect is not completely understood. These subtle hazards are far more deadly than the obvious ones. When 60-80% of marine debris is plastic based there is no place for animals to hide.

Up to 86% of all sea turtles are affected by this plastic debris due to the anatomy of their esophagus. They have a valve that allows the debris in but doesn’t let it out. Other animals have similarly amazingly high cases of plastic poisoning and damage. Plastic bags look very different underwater and are often mistaken for food sources such as jellyfish. When the turtle or fish goes for a meal it can be suffocated, or it can swallow the plastic. The plastic materials then sits in the stomach of the animal for literally years taking up space that is needed for real food and nutrients. Even “biodegradable” bags can take up to

So what are some solutions? Many communities worldwide are beginning steps to outlaw plastic bags while plastic bag manufactures are fighting back with biodegradable bags. Studies have shown though that these bags can take up to 3 years to decompose in the ocean. (Müller, 2012) That is an unacceptable length of time. The best solution involves bags that don’t need to be disposed of at all. Reusable bags can be used hundreds of times, and every time a plastic bag would be thrown away, the reusable bag saves that oil, that ocean, that turtle. But even with reusable bags there is a difference in materials that should be used. Cotton bags are not the best choice. Cotton is a very destructive crop to grow and harvest. Hemp is a much better alternative than cotton. Hemp is very basic and easy to grow with little pesticides. (Gibson, 2008) A hemp bag has little effect on the environment when it is made and when in use. The best part is after a hemp bag has been worn out, it will readily decompose.

By switching to reusable bags (preferably hemp) every shopper can make a difference in the health of the environment and its inhabitants. The raw materials that are wasted on bags can be put to better uses and create wealth for our country. The environment will benefit greatly from the stop of plastic debris input and all the creatures of the world will profit. Just by using a reusable bag over and over the world can be changed.

References

Clapp, J., & Swanston, L. (2009). Doing away with plastic shopping bags: international patterns of norm emergence and policy implementation. Environmental Politics, 18(3), 315-332. doi:10.1080/09644010902823717

Gibson, K. (2008). The Bag Idea. Journal Of Industrial Hemp, 13(1), 73-77. doi:10.1080/15377880801898741

Müller, C., Townsend, K., & Matschullat, J. (2012). Experimental degradation of polymer shopping bags (standard and degradable plastic, and biodegradable) in the gastrointestinal fluids of sea turtles. Science Of The Total Environment, 416464-467. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.10.069

Essay 3 Proposal-Let’s Recycle in the Far North

Many residents of Fairbanks, Alaska have a significant thing in common, and that is that we were not born here. Whether by military or road trip or university, there’s a large number of Fairbanksans who hail from the lower 48. Coming from the lower 48 usually means learning that there are some things done differently here. Some people live happy and clean lives without running water, others will actually ride bikes in arctic temperatures, and for most people, nobody comes around on Monday morning to pick up the garbage and mixed recyclables. Handling household waste is a responsibility that falls on the individual much of the time, which usually means that the garbage needs to take a quick trip in the car to one of several sites in the area, and be placed in a dumpster to be picked up later. Recycling in the area is even more elusive. In some communities outside of Alaska, recycling waste such as newspaper, plastic bottles, and aluminum cans is not only expected but mandated, and those communities are willing to put in their share of the effort by providing an appropriate recycling receptacle and picking up it’s contents regularly. This seems like quite a luxury in the Far North. Here, recycling options are scattered and unclear, and this creates an atmosphere friendly to throwing away garbage that could be easily recycled. Although Fairbanks is a relatively isolated city, the community should increase the amount of recycling taking place by providing more convenient options to do so because recycling is imperative in terms of promoting a local environmentalist culture, efforts made to provide some recycling options go underutilized because of their inconvenience, and developing the systems to allow interior Alaskans to recycle will eventually be more beneficial than expensive.

In any movement to change a society’s broad belief systems, supporters of those changes advocate for individuals to make small adjustments in the pursuit of collective benefits. Recycling was one of the first popular mechanisms to empower the average person in everyday environmentalism. Utilizing an alternative to the trash can becomes a habit. A greater consciousness about an issue urges others to adopt that way of thinking, and according to Social Interaction in Responsibility Ascription: The Case of Household Recycling, “When a consistent habit is formed it promotes the movement to change a bigger problem” (Brekke, Kipperberg, and Nyborg, p.766, 2010). Habit and social pressure would encourage Fairbanks to evolve in terms of recycling and environmentalism.

Environmentalism is a bit confusing living in Alaska. There are many valid reasons to drive a gas guzzling truck or SUV, but many of us know first hand exactly the magnitude of a disaster it would be to disrupt the caribou of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Alaskans depend on the joy of the outdoors and still routinely throw cans and water bottles into the trash, to forever life in a trash bag with no hope of decomposition. Efforts made by the local university, non-profit agencies and schools to run programs that urge Fairbanksans to recycle are ineffective. They usually offer to take one sort of item, either newspaper or cans for instance. These options do not promote recycling more in Fairbanks, nor are they very well publicized in the community. This could be because there aren’t the resources to handle a large amount of recycling, or because there isn’t very much motivation to do it. Either way, the over specifications of what can be recycled and the requirement of transporting the material yourself to the gathering site make these operations go underutilized and therefore a waste of community energy.

Most of us hope, if only because of our evolutionary drive, that humankind will be around for a good long time yet. Alaska is one of the most sparsely populated places in the nation, and the nation’s population grows constantly. If Fairbanks would invest now in the infrastructure and establishments necessary to recycle a good amount of our waste, the efforts would go far. Fairbanks maintains oil refineries and two military bases. Fairbanks could probably swing the organization of a convenient option for households to easily recycle. According to Halvorsen in Effects of Norms and Opportunity Cost of Time on Household Recycling, even when households are not mandated to do so, in cases where they are given a bin that is regularly picked up, they use them happily (Halvorsen, p.501, 2008). If you build it, they will come. We should have curb side recycling in Fairbanks, somehow. If we can’t have that, we should have mixed recycling receptacles located at all the dump sites where people take their garbage.

A commitment to environmentalism through creating a system that makes it easy for the community to recycle will eventually pay off, whether tangibly through the actual products produced or reused, or through the motivation it would create to be more environmentally conscious overall.

References

Halvorsen, B. (2008). Effects of Norms and Opportunity Cost of Time on Household Recycling. Land Economics, 84(3), 501-516.

Brekke, K., Kipperberg, G., & Nyborg, K. (2010). Social Interaction in Responsibility Ascription: The Case of Household Recycling. Land Economics, 86(4), 766-784.

Essay 3 Proposal – Recycling: Maybe a challenge but we are ready!

Essay 3 Proposal – Recycling: Maybe a challenge but we are ready!

My dear Fairbanksans:

Fairbanks is a city that is not in the mind of too many people, either because they don’t care, they haven’t heard about it, or because we are too far.  It is time for us, Fairbanksans to take action, we have to do our part and save our state.  Although many think recycling is not economically feasible in Fairbanks, people should set up recycling collection points around businesses and workplaces because we need to raise concern in individuals, facilitate access to recycling, and educate them on the importance of recycling.

You may remember those times when recycling was really popular, currently recycling is not in everybody’s mind, so what about remembering those times while helping with a little recycling too?  There are states or countries where recycling is really important and has become a way of life, part of their customs, while there is others states or countries where recycling is not important at all.  We are trying to bring the recycling euphoria back, beginning in our state that is why there will be a group of people setting up collection points that are accessible for everybody, look for the appropriate recycle bin and place the right items in there.  Every other day, or as deem necessary, we will pick up the recycle materials and we would bring them to the Fairbanks Rescue Mission or to the correct collecting points.  There is even a program for electronics, we would collect any electronic materials that you may have and store them until pick up time, every third Friday of the month.

Awareness is the main point, if we reduce, reuse and recycle, we will do our part and we will reduce the amount of waste that is thrown in the world, we don’t have to start big, we can start with our state and after we see some results we will go from there.  People believe recycling is complicated and avoid traveling distances to get to recycling points, now there will be no excuse, with collection points around the corner of everybody’s job, or place of residence, recycling will be easy and convenient.  By recycling aluminum cans less aluminum will be needed since it will be used instead of going to waste, and cans once again will become, aluminum cans.  We will  used them as such, decreasing the amount of waste; by recycling paper we will save millions of trees that will help absorb carbon monoxide from the air, instead of creating six times as much by burning it.  By recycling plastic, there will be less waste materials in the oceans, and we will waste less energy; with the recycling of glass we will also save energy and there will be less air and water pollution since glass takes a long time to break down.  Recycling will not just help some people, at the end it will help us all.

Help the earth, help the world, help your state, help Alaska, and most important of all help your city, help Fairbanks.  Fairbanks is where we live, where our children are growing and where we want to be.  Every person goes to plenty of plastic bottles, magazines, newspapers, sodas, beers, etc.  This creates a lot of waste.  Don’t dispose of glass, aluminum, and plastics in just any container, classify them, keep them together and bring them with you, you will see the right place to dispose of them while helping the environment too.  If our program works we may be able to keep on adding collection points making it easier, little by little.

Remember, taking care of our world is not just somebody’s responsibility, it is everybody’s job.  Look for the collection points I can warranty you that you will not need to look too far, they will be near you.  Talk to your friends and family members, tell them of the importance of recycling and how easy it has become, we know that it may be a little hard at first, but once we get used to it, this will be like anything else.  I remember how hard it was to drive my trash to the dumpsters, now we don’t even think about it, we just know it is time to go.  This would be the same thing, and one day recycling will be done without even thinking about it.  Come on participate, let’s keep a cleaner world for all to enjoy.

We will welcome your questions, suggestion and help, please don’t hesitate to contact “We Care, recycling group” at 907-xxx-xxxx.

Essay #2 Book Review (Revision)- Rural Renissance

What does the future of the world look like? Will it be one that is dying and its future looks bleak or is it one where life is thriving, birds are singing, the grass is green, and the sun is shining bright? “A renewal of life, vigor, interest; rebirth; revival”, this is how renaissance is defined. The world is in need of a renaissance. Although city life is supposed to be the dream life in his book Rural Renaissance, Bill McKibben, with help from John Ivanko and Lisa Kivirist, shows that living in the country is the best way to create a greener lifestyle because people are able to positively influence their food sources, more easily use alternative energy sources, and be able to leave the best gift of all to their family, skills for a better way of life.

When a green lifestyle is mentioned what comes to mind, someone who is one with the earth?  Or maybe someone whose life is so far out in left field that they tend to make others think twice about going green? A green lifestyle does not mean you must become a nonconformist and throw your cares to the wind. Becoming more conscious of the food that is eaten and how it is grown or raised can help to live life to the greenest. In the book Rural Renaissance, the first step to making life green is to realize the “rippling effect – the multiplicity of small changes is something we carry over into our lives” (p. 23). There are many small things that can be done to change a way of life into one that is more renewed. Positively influencing the food source is a way to live green. Organic farming is not only good for the planet but for the people who eat the food, too. Chapter three has many ideas on how to grow the greenest garden. The information shows how the seeds should be selected and planted along with how the garden should be tended to also. It is mentioned that when planning the location and the plants that will be grown in the garden, take into consideration the animals in the area.  Wildlife can be an added bonus to how well the garden grows.  Think of it as creating an edible landscape that all of nature can share in.  A few great recipes can be found within these pages to be used with the produce that is grown fresh in the garden. Free range animals, such as chickens, are also a great source for farm fresh eggs and poultry that is guaranteed to be the purest of its kind. But that is not all this great book has to offer.

Has alternative energy and heat sources ever been something that has caused a mild curiosity? There is a chapter on that as well. Solar, wind and water are all three great sources for renewable energy sources that can be incorporated into any home. Think about a nice hot bath or shower. Imagine that water being heated by the sun. Ivanko and Kivirist take the time to point out exactly how that can be done (2004), “We appreciate and look forward to the sun’s grand entrance and exit. Sunrises and sunsets are nothing short of a daily dramatic performance” (p. 118). When the sun comes up every morning take advantage and appreciate all of the warmth and energy it gives off.   There is another natural resource that should not be overlooked. Without the wind to bring relief from the heat of the sun, life here on earth would be unbearable. Wind is a great energy source to harness. When those notorious winds “come sweeping down the plains” and turn those turbines a great thing happens (Oklahoma Historical Society, n.d.).   A residential wind turbine system can produce as much as 13,560 kilowatt hours annually with an average wind speed of 13 miles per hour (p. 131). Just think if there was a windmill in the yard of every house how much energy would be saved. Plans on how to use a residential windmill are found in this book too. These gifts that nature gives to use should be used but with great care.

Future generations need to be taught how to care for these great gifts. The knowledge that is passed down from generations gives the gift of a better life. It is imperative to “live with the seventh generation in mind” (p. 12). The seventh generation is ” a concept from the Iroquois Nation: every individual action is examined and evaluated based on how its effect may be felt seven generations into the future” (p. 12). That is a sobering concept but it is one worth living by. If the people of today do not think how their actions affect the future, then who is there to teach the skills needed to care for life? The children of the future rely on the actions and the skills they are taught today. Teaching how to grow an organic garden isn’t the only way to improve the future.  Creating a passion for a better lifestyle is a way to show the next generation how to live on earth and not destroy it. As so aptly put, “we envisioned the cultivation of a livelihood and a more sustainable lifestyle that would help restore the land, protect nature, and – long after we’ve passed away – thrive and prosper” (p. 249). What kind of legacy should be left for the children? A legacy which prospers with great hope for a better life or a future where they are left with nothing?

Rural Renaissance gives people good information to think about how life should be lived. From how food is influenced and influences the ones who eat it, to how energy is collected and used, and how the future is something each person needs to think about. Rural Renaissance is a book worth sharing with those who will one day be left to care for the future.

References

McKibben, B., Ivanko, J., and Kivirist, L. (2004). Rural Renaissance. BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Oklahoma Historical Society. (n.d.). OKLAHOMA! Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History & Cukture. Retrieved from http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/O/OK090.html

Renaissance. (n.d.). In The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/renaissance?s=ts