Month: October 2018

Within the last few years, there has been a rise in support for electric cars as a green option for transportation, but many people think that simply using an electric car is being eco-friendly. This viewpoint is a dangerous one because it avoids the science behind electric cars and makes these cars seem more like a trend than an actual attempt to be environmentally conscious. There have been more than 325,000 preorders for the Model 3 Tesla car, now it is nearly impossible to tell whether or not people are buying vehicles like this to be eco-friendly or simply because it is a trend to own a car like this. The danger comes with the fact that people who buy these vehicles tend to only look at the surface reasons that electric cars are considered eco-friendly and not the full picture (Beillo).

“Electric cars are only as good as the electricity that charges them (Beillo).”

This concept is very important in understanding the impact that electric cars truly have on the environment. When switching to an electric car you are to a degree switching from exhaust pipe emissions to a power plant emissions. At the end of the day, the car still needs to be powered by some type of energy and for many people, the energy that goes into their electric cars come from places that range from less to even more environmentally damaging. If you are interested in getting an electric car and want it to do something a little more than just look pretty, it is important to do research on where the energy that will be powering your car is coming from. Some places such as Norway will provide you with an extremely clean power source for your brand new car. “Norway is probably the closest thing you’ll get to a true zero-emissions vehicle—because the European country draws almost all of its electricity from hydro power plants (Efstathiou and Merrill).” The emissions that your car is responsible for depends on your country’s power sources, but it is important to remember that even in countries like China, where an electric vehicle is responsible for about double the emissions that an electric car in the United States is, still is cleaner than the average gasoline-powered car. So when looking at the newest electric car remember that just using an electric vehicle doesn’t mean you can be doing more for the environment.

2.

Another part of electric vehicles that people tend to overlook is the damage that the batteries cause to the environment. The Bloomberg article talks about how the production of the batteries that go into these electric vehicles. Much like the power it is important to know where the battery in your care is going to come from, most come from “China, Thailand, Germany and Poland” and these countries tend to rely on non renewable energy (Bloomberg). The problem is these batteries could use so much dirty energy that it would take numerous years for the electric car to be worth it in an environmental sense. It is very important to remember that depending on where these cars are made and how they are charged they might not be that much cleaner than the average car. It is important to note that these cars aren’t moving from diesel energy to no energy, but instead to other (possibly nonrenewable) energy sources. Next time you are looking for a vehicle and you choose an electric car, remember that your environmental action isn’t done and that there are still ways to produce less of a footprint.

-George Antash
Sources:

1. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/new-research-punctures-electric-cars-greenhouse-gas-claims/articleshow/66268635.cms
2. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-28/how-green-is-your-electric-car
3. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not-necessarily-clean/

Biking is not just an engaging activity you use to teach your kid how to balance. Bikes show they have a variety of benefits, ranging from health benefits by providing riders with a fun, simple way to get in their daily essential exercise to economic benefits like saving major moolah on gas and car repair costs. These little two-wheeled powerhouses also have the ability to combat the dire effects of global warming that are ever-so-prevalent in today’s consumeristic society.

How, might you ask? It’s as easy as 1-2-3. No, literally.

1. No fuel is required for biking.

2. The amount of energy used to manufacture a bike is exponentially less compared to that of a car.

3. Bicycles do not need toxic batteries/ motor oil.

Wait, so how does that translate to decreasing global warming? In short, the release of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) into the air traps solar energy in the atmosphere, raising global temperatures. Global warming (or climate change, however you want to call it) occurs naturally, but humans and their expenditure of resources also play a significant role. No, we cannot reverse the effects of global warming, nor can we stop it, but we do have the power to slow our expenditure!

Here’s a fun fact: you can help save your planet for only a 10 mile ROUND TRIP commute 5 days per week for a year! Just check out the average amount of CO2 emissions such a small trip cost our dear environment in the table below.

1

Now to put America’s CO2 emissions in perspective: on average, one American citizen produces three times as much CO2 emissions as a person in (the relatively, but not exorbitantly bike-friendly) France. Pretty sad, huh?

So, what can we do about it? Sure, we are seeing a natural shift as the majority of bike riders in the U.S. are students, and we can only hope they continue to inspire future generations, but there are other ways to be proactive. If you look at the infrastructure in major cities like Portland, commonly referred to as America’s biking capital, compared to cities like Detroit, the amount of cyclists dwindles substantially. The availability of resources— or lack thereof— discourages bike usage. Social norms also impose a disadvantage to cycling popularity. While biking is more normalized and a huge part of the culture in Europe, it is not reciprocated here in the U.S.

For more shocking biking factoids, visit: http://peopleforbikes.org/our-work/statistics/statistics-category/?cat=environmental-statistics#bicycling-the-environment

Krissy Gear

Sources:

1. https://youcanbikethere.com/environmental-benefits/

In the Spring of 2015, my father and I took an overcrowded bus to the Florida Keys. We were with my first and his maybe hundredth dive group hailing from Atlanta headed south with the intention of diving at some of the most beautiful coral reefs the United States offers, the various reefs surrounding the southernmost island in the Keys, Key Largo. The first few minutes in the water are always nerve-racking, at least for me. Floating with nothing below you but what appears to be an azure abyss is nothing less than extremely unsettling. However, after our DiveMaster beckoned my father and I deeper into this alien world, what lay at the bottom of the ocean slowly came into view. Beautiful, cascading formations of exotic colors and shapes filled our eyes. Fish, large and small, darted in and out of the sprawling caves in an attempt to avoid our group’s obnoxious bubbles and awkward movements. I can only owe our awkwardness to the sheer sense of awe instilled in us by the unbelievably gorgeous landscape before our group. We spent the next hour floating above and exploring this underwater city. It wasn’t until after we had moved past the most beautiful corals that I began to realize something.

Most of the corals were dead.

Bleached white, or covered in their own rotting tissue, over half of the corals we came upon were either already dead or quickly fading away. To see such beauty literally melting away into nothing was heartbreaking. These areas of dead corals hosted almost no fish, with the exception of a few bottom feeders. I remember vividly stopping in the water and just looking at it all. Behind me was a bustling metropolis of an unbelievably complex and beautiful underwater ecosystem, and not ten feet away from it was a graveyard.

After the dive, I had asked the DiveMaster what was happening to the reefs, why they were all dying if not already dead. His reply was unsatisfying, something along the lines of a “natural order of things”, but I knew that wasn’t true. I decided to do a little digging, and figured out that corals have been in a state of decay for since the 1980s.

Contributing Factors

One would assume that the factors causing coral populations to be endangered like fishing or the digging of canals are the only things affecting the coral population, but most of the blame points to ocean acidification. Ocean acidification is the theory that “the release of carbon dioxide (CO₂) from humankind’s industrial and agricultural activities has increased the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere. The ocean absorbs about a quarter of the CO₂ we release into the atmosphere every year, so as atmospheric CO₂ levels increase, so do the levels in the ocean” (PMEL/NOAA). This seems like a relatively mild problem, but the ocean’s rapidly changing CO₂ levels are “changing the chemistry of the seawater” and creating an environment in which corals cannot survive (PMEL/NOAA). When a living thing’s habitat is threatened, it has two options: move or die. Unfortunately, coral cannot move, so the latter is the only option. The following image represents a healthy coral (left) versus a bleached coral (right). There are few reefs around the world where you will not see bleached corals.

What’s Happening

The deaths of most corals around the world is due to bleaching, a process in which, due to surrounding water being too warm, corals “will expel the algae (zooxanthellae) living in their tissues causing the coral to turn completely white. When a coral bleaches, it is not dead. Corals can survive a bleaching event, but they are under more stress and are subject to mortality” (NOAA). These high levels of stress in corals post-bleach is basically death’s door for corals. Their massive impact on underwater ecosystems, and therefore extremely high responsibility to keep the ecosystem functioning efficiently prove too much for the corals under stress to perform, and they die. Additional factors besides the change of seawater chemistry due to pollution include rising water temperatures (which is also arguably a product of increased CO₂ emissions), overexposure to sunlight, and low tides.  The following graphic assists in understanding of the process of coral bleaching.

The Consequences

There are various consequences to the death of corals across the globe. Firstly, we lose beautiful underwater landscapes that contribute to the tourism industry in countless countries which enjoy the economic benefits of reefs. Tourism with regard to reefs is a $375 billion industry, and as more of them die off, these countries – some of which rely heavily on the economic benefits of tourism – will suffer. On a more environmental note, however, thousands of fish species rely on reefs for shelter, food, and breeding. Taking away this shelter allows for weaker species to be either hunted to extinction by predators, or die by starvation (oceana). Geographically, corals also serve a purpose. Their immense size helps to break waves and keep nearby coasts safe from high tides or destructive waves. So, if the corals die off, the nearby coasts are absolutely at risk of some pretty extensive water damage (oceana). Lastly, when the reefs die, fish must abandon them in order to find more shelter and food sources, this exodus affects local fishermen and coastal peoples who rely on the reefs for food and economy (oceana).

What can we do?

The best way to combat coral bleaching and death has been put forth time and again for thousands of environmental issues. This solution of course is the phasing out of fossil fuels that produce CO₂ emissions. Unfortunately, I don’t see this change coming anytime soon. The ofssil fuel industry is simply too integral in the world’s economy. Doing away with this industry as a whole would jeopardize millions. Thousands would be jobless, many cities and towns (and even some countries) would lose their primary source of income, and who knows what kinds of political drama it would produce. The only thing we can do if this industry isn’t going to go away would be to advocate for more sustainable methods of energy like solar or wind power. Across the US, we are seeing more and more solar and wind farms, but they are extremely expensive, and unfortunately people tend to cling to what is familiar (and cheap, for that matter), so in the immediate future I can’t see any massive change coming to our society as far as renewable energy goes.

As depressing as it is, I think we should all take the time and effort to appreciate reefs while we still can.

 

Sources

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coral_bleach.html

https://oceana.org/blog/glance-coral-reefs-are-dying-heres-why

 

-Noah Barnes

Organically grown foods are often touted as being superior to conventionally grown foods in nearly every aspect.  They are popularly considered to be better for your health and to practice more sustainable growing methods that are healthier for the environment than conventional farming methods.  Organic farmers use naturally based fertilizers and pesticides to grow crops, replacing synthetic ones that may be more toxic to the environment and to humans.  Weeds are also controlled naturally through methods such as crop rotation instead of using herbicides.

However, agriculture consists of a series of trade-offs, and all parts of a farm are interconnected.  Fertilizers and pesticides are used by conventional farms to insure that each parcel of land is used to its maximum potential.  Conventional farms are extremely efficient with land use, growing the most crops with the smallest input of other resources possible.  This decreases the resources required per kilogram of product to grow crops because less water, land, and fertilizer are used to feed weeds and pests.  Organic farms, however, must compensate for not using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides by using larger tracts of land and larger amounts of natural fertilizers.  By over fertilizing, pollutants may run into water systems, leading to algal blooms.  Dedicating additional land to farming destroys the ecosystems and habitats that organic farming methods are supposed to protect.

It is also important to note that although organic food producers use fewer and less ecotoxic pesticides, they still use naturally derived ones.  Without any pesticides, crop yields would decrease drastically.  Naturally derived pesticides are thought to be less harmful to humans, but some have been found to be dangerous.

Organic and conventional farming methods have essentially similar impacts on the environment.  The additional synthetic herbicides and pesticides used by conventional farms are balanced by additional land and fertilizer use by organic farms.  If one is looking to buy eco-friendly farm products, one must work harder than simply buying organically grown produce.  In some areas, such as India and China, lack of technology and regulation means that organically grown methods have an ecological edge over conventional methods.  However, in the US and Europe, the increasing use of genetically modified organisms further reduces the need for synthetic chemicals when growing conventional food and may be more ecologically friendly.  We will all have to do our part in researching environmentally friendly food sources if we want to make a difference.

Hayden Braun

Sources:

Organic vs. conventional farming: Which has lower environmental impact?

https://www.helpguide.org/articles/healthy-eating/organic-foods.htm

https://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Bulletins/Transitioning-to-Organic-Production/Text-Version/What-is-Organic-Farming

What is Minimalism?

Minimalism, as a lifestyle trend, is a relatively new lifestyle trend which gained its popularity mostly via the documentary by Ryan Nicodemus and Joshua Fields Millburn, titled appropriately, “Minimalism: A Documentary About the Important Things.”

According to Ryan and Joshua, minimalism is “a lifestyle that helps people question what things add value to their lives” (Nicodemus). In many ways, it is a response to the unchecked consumerism prevalent in today’s society. Many of us, especially in developed nations like the US, have way too-big houses with way-too many, low-quality things in them. The minimalist approach asks people to question these objects and things in their lives and consider whether they bring value or happiness.

But why question this?

It’s as simple as two words: opportunity cost. The objects we own incur an opportunity cost of both money and time because using and maintain them takes money and time that could be used to do or buy something else (Jonathan Vieker).

The Trend of #Minimalism

Minimalism has become somewhat of a trendy “fad” now. People love posting on various social medias, bragging about the amount of stuff they *don’t* own. Some people even go to the extremes-giving up their personal homes, college diplomas, and any other possessions which can’t all fit in one stylish Scandinavian backpack. Many also buy into it because it is a more sustainable lifestyle. Having less things and investing in handmade, naturally sourced products reduces the environmental impact of your life. From tiny houses to white walls with one piece of furniture, minimalism has become a house decor trend too. It’s all about the aesthetic.

The items minimalisms do spend their money on and decide add value to their lives are often handmade, made out of raw materials, and aggressively simplistic (Chayka).

The Downside to Minimalism

Here’s the truth: the only people who can practice minimalism are people who can afford it 

Wealth allows for risk taking, and living as a strict minimalist is definitely a risk. As Chelsea Fagan puts it in her article, “Minimalism: another boring product wealthy people can buy”, minimalism “allows you to take on some of the desirable aspects and morality of poverty without ever having to be poor.” If you are already living in a sparse home, you cannot afford to declutter. When you’re just trying to meet your basic needs, you are not considering what things add happiness or value to your life; you are considering what things keep your life going. When you have money, you can afford to have less and to make the objects you do have more aesthetically pleasing. It takes a lot to be a minimalist: social capital, a safety net, and access to the internet (Chayka).

“These people are still conspicuously consuming in mind-boggling ways, they’re just filtering it through the convenient prism of simplicity, and that allows their million-dollar wardrobes to somehow be aspirational” (Fagan)

Looking at your life and questioning whether the items you own add value and happiness to your life is not inherently a bad thing. In fact, questioning in life is extremely important. Buying more ethical, aesthetically pleasing items is not inherently bad either. Being a #minimalist can actually be a good thing. But as a society, we must recognize the limitations and inequalities to the minimalism trend instead of perpetuating unrealistic ideals.

-Nataley Williams

References:

Chayka, K. (2016, July 26). The Oppressive Gospel of ‘Minimalism’. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/magazine/the-oppressive-gospel-of-minimalism.html

Fagan, C. (2017, March 04). Minimalism: Another boring product wealthy people can buy. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/04/minimalism-conspicuous-consumption-class

Jonathan Vieker, ViekerMusician, J., Edgar, J., R., Shaw, J., Bolle, M., . . . D. (2018, August 17). The Problem with Minimalism. Retrieved from https://jonathanvieker.com/problem-with-minimalism/

Nicodemus, R. (2015, July 12). Minimalism: An Elevator Pitch. Retrieved from https://www.theminimalists.com/pitch/