Author: Hannah Peterson

Ethan Kohrt

Among my generation there seems to be a strange sort of hopeless apathy about big issues. For many of us, we think our votes don’t make a difference, large corporations are too powerful to challenge, and the planet is racing swiftly and surely towards climate-induced Armageddon; surely there’s nothing that we can do as individuals to change things. Where did this sense of powerlessness come from? I’m not sure. But I think the best way to combat it is by spreading a message of hope. On the issue of climate change, this means reminding people that these problems have solutions, and that they are within the grasp of each one of us.

Some of this despair about climate change might come from the way the issue is most often framed: the typical persuasive piece I read recounts the myriad ways the global ecosystem is collapsing, then describes the cataclysmic future that awaits us if the trend continues, and closes with a plea for the reader to do… something. But despite being factually true and sensibly distraught, I see a big problem with this kind of argument. By focusing on the staggering scale of climate change and existential hopelessness of the current situation, it’s all too easy to frighten people into complacency. The problem just seems too big, and the solutions too far out of reach. I think that this theme has become so common in the media that instead of provoking action, ordinary people have started to become numb to it: thus the hopelessness. Something has got to change.

I believe that when we communicate about climate change, we have a responsibility to offer solutions that the audience could and would take part in themselves. A good way to do this is to use a method similar to “Graduated Exposure” in psychotherapy, whereby anxious people can overcome their fears and uncertainties. First break the issue into smaller parts; and then break the parts into a series of manageable steps, such that the first step has the lowest threshold, and the next is accessible from the first, and so on. For example, food production accounts for a decent portion of global emissions, and to lower emissions on this front everybody should ideally switch to a more sustainable vegetarian or vegan diet. Realistically, though, few people are willing or able to make such a drastic lifestyle change. So the problem needs to be simplified further; step one is to start by limiting the foods with the highest impact, beef and lamb. Perhaps limit consumption to once per week. Then, after some time eliminate them entirely, and set your sights on pork.

The point is, the idea of making a big and sudden lifestyle change can be pretty intimidating when viewed as a first step, but if you offer gradual steps leading up to it, people will find it much more appealing to begin the transition. This applies to every other aspect of the climate change issue; if you communicate in this way, people will think of it not as an unfathomable and insurmountable hurdle, but as a process in which they can directly make an impact. This little change in perspective might be the beginning of hope.

 

Carbon Footprint of Common Foods

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46459714

Graduated Exposure:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/headroom/cbt/graded_exposure.pdf

Rachel Knight

The building of Trump’s 5.5 meter (18-foot) wall plan will affect not only humans, but could potentially harm and endanger the surrounding ecosystems. 654 miles of existing barriers and walls were built with materials such as barbed wire to steel, bollard to wire mesh, and have already greatly affected the delicate ecosystems and wildlife on the border. President Trump favors construction of a border wall due to his value of strong immigration policies. The president has gone as far as shutting down the government in efforts to force lawmakers to provide $5 billion in funding. Illegal immigration was a central theme of his 2016 presidential bid, and he appealed to this issue by deploying 5,800 U.S. troops in 2018 to the border as immigrants from Central America desperately crossed into the United States.

Biodiversity on the border is threatened by this barrier wall, but the full effect has not yet been determined by scientists. A biologist at Penn State, Jesse Lasky, has attempted to assess the threat of the border wall. They estimated that, “134 mammal, 178 reptile, and 57 amphibian species live within about 30 miles of the line. Of those, 50 species and three subspecies are globally or federally threatened in Mexico or the United States.” Various threatened species on this border survive only because people on both sides have worked hard to conserve them.

The construction of this wall is expected to uproot a protected habitat of butterflies along the Rio Grande after the U.S. Supreme Court brushed off various environmental groups that wished to fight against this decision. Supreme court justices maintained District Court ruling to allow the Trump administration to overlook 28 federal laws for southern border wall construction, a few of which being the Endangered Species Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act. It’s unsettling the lengths our president and the supreme court are willing to go to for this wall, purposely bypassing laws that are in place for significant reasons such as to protect our environment and species that risk extinction. It should appear obvious to the administration that by having to overlook this many laws, or any at all, should raise red flags and cause them to realize the potential detrimental effects constructing a border wall would have on the surrounding territory and its inhabitants. “I don’t think it’s understood [by lawmakers], and if it is, it’s discounted. ‘Oh, it’s just wildlife, big deal, they’ll figure out a way,’ or, ‘It’s the desert, there are no animals down there,’” said Kevin Bixby, executive director of the Southwest Environmental Center.”  This whole position of ignorance will have serious impacts on wildlife populations. It will prevent jaguars from coming back to the U.S., and some subspecies will disappear completely from the face of the Earth.

“Hundreds of thousands of butterflies housed at the nonprofit National Butterfly Center will be in jeopardy after about 70 percent of the center’s land winds up on the other side of the border wall,” according to the executive director of the center, Marianna Wright. Other concerns about this wall lie in the decline of the region’s ecotourism. Jeffrey Glassberg, the president of the center, predicts that visits will fall by half simply because it will cease to be a pleasant and peaceful place to visit. Lawsuits have been set in place against the government by three organizations, all led by the Animal Legal Defense Fund. Their claim is that construction of the wall would harm plants, wildlife and other species such as fairy shrimp and the Quino checkerspot butterfly.

With political and economic issues surrounding the border wall aside, continued construction of this wall will result in the bulldozing of land and sanctuaries that will negatively impact the volume and diversity of the species in this area by destroying their habitats or restricting access to areas containing essential resources for these species.

 

Citations:

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/ocelots-butterflies-border-wall

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/butterfly-sanctuary-in-texas-expected-to-be-plowed-over-for-trumps-border-wall/

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/28/17152644/trump-border-wall-texas-environment-refuge-butterflies

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/trumps-border-wall-could-kill-texas-butterfly-sanctuary/

I decided to collect the trash that the Eco Cottage and the surrounding areas produced. When searching I attempted to pick out pieces that would both give the colors and textures of a tree trunk, but attempted to make sure I wasn’t too accurate because I wanted the final piece to be more of a representation of a tree. I tried to be extremely limited with the resources I used outside of our garbage; the only thing that wasn’t waste was adhesive. The sculpture went through many different changes when I started making it: first, my leaves were made out of metal and were scarce, however, this didn’t really help show that it was a tree. Eventually, the leaf design changed to plastic bags that were littering the area. I choose the shape of a tree because it is a universal symbol for the environment and it is recognizable enough that no matter what it is made of it is still recognizable. The point of the piece is to show that we can reuse and recycle trash to create new things as well as be eco-friendly.

Noah Barnes

What are Fossil Fuels?

Fossil fuels are naturally formed fuels that originate from organic materials, such as plants and animals, and pressure from the Earth’s crust along with the passage of hundreds of millions of years.  These organic materials break down into crude oil, coal, natural gas, or heavy oils (sciencedaily). In most first world countries, fossil fuels are the leading sources of energy, dominating everything from household machines like cars or heating systems to industrial facilities. Figure (A) shows fossil fuel consumption in the United States over roughly the past 250 years, and it is not difficult to deduce that our consumption of these limited resources has grown exponentially in the past 100 years alone. Since so many processes rely on fossil fuels to function properly, we are consistently pulling these resources out of every nook and cranny we can find. There are two major problems with this mass extraction of resources: (1) these extraction processes can be extremely harmful to the environment, and (2) we are running out of fossil fuels.

 

What Effects does the Extraction of Fossil Fuels have on the Environment?

Coal, one of the most abundant and useful fossil fuels which has been used to power countless empires throughout history, harbors one of the most harmful methods of extraction:  mining and drilling. Over the past several decades, there has been a gradual shift from underground coal mining to surface mining (ucsusa). Underground coal mining carries less harm than surface mining due to the fact that underground mining is… underground. Surface mining involves methods like strip mining (a process that consists of overlaying soil to access the coal below) and mountaintop removal.  Because coal mining has only become more streamlined in the past two hundred years, the fact that we can do this faster only means that more habitats and environments will be destroyed.

Another primary fossil fuel on Earth is oil. When oil and gas are extracted, water that had been trapped in the geologic formation is brought to the surface. This “produced water” can carry with it naturally occurring dissolved solids, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and radioactive materials in concentrations unsuitable for human consumption and difficult to dispose of safely (ucsusa). Due to the mass drilling taking place offshore, harmful toxins found in deeper water are being brought to the surface at an exponential rate. Not only is this water harmful to humans, but also to the habitats of surrounding ocean life. Additionally, pumping oil to the surface not only requires millions of gallons of water, but also 15,000-60,000 gallons of chemicals, many of which are undisclosed to Federal regulators. Researchers could track only 353 chemicals from that larger list and found that 25 percent of those chemicals cause cancer or other mutations, and about half could severely damage neurological, cardiovascular, endocrine, and immune systems (ucsusa).

 

What do we have planned for the Future?

Sustainable and renewable energy sources are a hot market right now due to the fact that people are finally becoming aware that we are running out of fossil fuels. This means that researchers and investors are constantly looking for new solutions or methods of clean, renewable energy. It may seem like the metaphorical “golden goose” of the modern world due to its seemingly too good to be true nature, but new energy sources are not unobtainable.

Solar and water power are not exactly new, but they aren’t old hat either. More hydroelectric dams – dams which produce energy based on the movement of water, like from a river – are being built across the country every day. Solar power has a bit of a social taboo due to the fact that it is an expensive and not extremely effective solution.  However, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is in the process of reviewing possible federal tax exemptions for those who use solar power to create a financial incentive for more people to use solar.  Geothermal and Nuclear energy are a little more volatile and a lot more expensive to maintain, however, the research and testing of these types of energy sources is just beginning, so it would not be unlikely for nuclear and/or geothermal energy to see a spike in both popularity and effectiveness in the near future.

 

What should we Conclude from this?

To conclude, fossil fuels are quickly becoming a limited resource, and we should expect to see most of them depleted within 100 years (ecotricity). While the harmful environmental effects of fossil fuel extraction may cease because of this (and this is something we should definitely be excited about), humans will still need new sources of energy when we run out of what we have been using. This is the uplifting bit – clean, renewable energy is on the rise not only in the United States, but in a conglomerate of energy-concerned countries worldwide. We will continue to experiment with what we have, pioneer what we can, and hopefully make a breakthrough for renewable energy as soon as possible.

 

Sources

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/fossil_fuel.htm

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/hidden-cost-of-fossils#.XFOWnM17lPY

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26912

https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/energy-independence/the-end-of-fossil-fuels

(A) U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review

 

I painted this landscape with the thought of global warming in mind. Science shows that there are roughly only twelve years for global warming to be kept under control until detrimental effects take place on the world. I look at this painting with hopes of a better future for our Earth and as a reminder of what the Earth used to look like before careless, unsustainable actions took place.

Nataley Williams

Last year, the food service provider at my college (Bon Appétit) banned all plastic straws on campus and replaced them with paper straws as a step towards campus sustainability. Their decision was a part of a larger national movement to phase out plastic straws. Companies such as Starbucks, Alaska Airlines, and McDonald’s are announcing plans to eliminate plastic straws by next year (A Brief). These companies are responding to the large outcry from activists who are demanding actions against the plastic straws that are harming the oceans. In America alone, 500 million straws are used daily, and a large portion of those are ending up in our oceans (Straw Wars). While I, as a Sustainability Science major, was happy about this transition, the campus reactions to the change were widespread. One question I heard over and over and often even asked myself as the paper of my straw withered away was, “Does my one straw really matter?”—in other words, is this one straw going to make a difference in the long run? Will any of my actions ever actually matter or have an impact at all?

That stream of questions occurs often in my head and in many others around me. With roughly 7.7 billion people in the world, it is easy to feel small and to think that your actions do not really matter on the grander scale. And really, your actions do not matter. As much as I hate to admit it, your one straw means little to nothing.

But your mindset does.

While one straw in itself may not matter, each person using just one straw equates to billions of straws. And while the transition to paper straws, even if it was global, will not solve any large sustainability issues, it is the mindset behind the movement that really means something. Large sustainability problems demand agency—the kind of agency that comes from knowing your straw doesn’t matter but acting sustainable anyway. If everyone believes their actions have no impact, then no actions will equate to the changes required. Conversely, if people see their actions as important, then that is how movements begin and persevere.

Many people also argue that globally banning all plastic straws will not result in a large change and that plastic straws are the least of our concerns regarding sustainability. While this is true, it is important to think how small changes can lead, and often do lead, to bigger and more important ones. The straw ban movement is a small step in an effort by many to eliminate single-use plastics, which are polluting our land and oceans. Even in the smallest way, consumers who are so used to the disposability of our current country might stop and think about why they are getting a paper or reusable straw instead of a plastic one. Those moments of questioning or consideration really matter to sustainability scientists because our major goal is to encourage conscious consumerism and push back against the planned obsolescence that our current society revolves around.

Often, sustainability activists must remind each other that our fight is a marathon and not a race. Important changes likely will never occur overnight, and it takes many years to see transitions to sustainability in society. But eventually, one straw turns into two straws and then into billions of straws.

“We know that just banning plastic straws will not be enough, but it’s a start. “Maybe you decide today to bring your reusable water bottle or mug with you, or you decide not to buy that cucumber that is wrapped in plastic. Every little bit helps.”

• Dune Ives, executive director of the environmental nonprofit Lonely Whale. (Plastic Straws Retreat)

Katie Crockford

Over the past several months, I have continuously heard more and more about humans’ high (and rapidly increasing) amounts of damage to planet Earth. We cut down too many trees, waste too much water, drive too often and emit hazardous gases, forget to turn off light switches, eat too much meat and fish, leave the water running while we brush our teeth, etc. While some of these are more detrimental than others and some seem more reasonable for a college student to fix, I have challenged myself to live as sustainably as possible. I’ve found myself doing little tasks such as turning the lights off when I leave a room or making sure I take as quick a shower as possible to conserve water. However, most of all, I have trained myself to constantly be thinking about sustainability and to make a conscious effort to consider it in all aspects of my life. In doing so, I recently started thinking about sustainability in the clothing and fashion industry. I began to do a little research and found myself appalled at not only the lack of sustainability in the clothing industry, but how many steps there are in the process of producing clothes. As a result, there is plenty of room for sustainable errors in clothing production. In society today, there is a lot of emphasis on producing as many goods as possible in as little time as possible, which can sacrifice environmental and human health. When breaking down the steps of clothing production, there are a lot of steps and questions to consider. Are the designers using sustainable materials or online resources when possible in place of paper? Are the manufacturers using sustainable, energy efficient equipment and tools to make clothing, shoes, jewelry, etc.? What materials are the finished products being shipped in? Are they held in storage anywhere in the process? If so, where and why?

Though a lot of these things feel a little bit out of my control and difficult to change on a large level, I have challenged myself to think about ways in which I can help with this particular issue in sustainability. I have tried to take better care of my clothes in order to make them last longer, and when I am done with them, I have started considering donation/recycling options instead of throwing them away. I have passed down old clothes and shoes to family members and friends. Whatever I have left after that, I try to donate somewhere not only so they don’t go to waste but also to hopefully help someone else in need. I have been able to take an issue that I felt I couldn’t impact and apply it to my everyday life. I have changed my shopping habits, started investigating how different brands of clothing are made, and encouraged my friends and family members to do the same. Many small steps towards being more sustainable make a big difference!

 

Sources

“Fashion’s 7 Priorities To Achieve Sustainability.” The Business of Fashion, The Business of Fashion, 27 Mar. 2018, www.businessoffashion.com/articles/news-analysis/fashions-7-priorities-to-achieve-sustainability.

 

“SEVEN FORMS OF SUSTAINABLE FASHION.” Green Strategy Sustainable and Circular Fashion Consulting, www.greenstrategy.se/sustainable-fashion/seven-forms-of-sustainable-fashion/.

 

“The Story Behind the Label.” The Story Behind the Label, www.thestorybehindthelabel.com/labels/2016/1/18/how-does-mass-production-in-clothes-works.

“WHAT IS SUSTAINABLE FASHION?” Green Strategy Sustainable and Circular Fashion Consulting, www.greenstrategy.se/sustainable-fashion/what-is-sustainable-fashion/.

 

“While you are reading these words four people, most likely children, will die of starvation—and twenty-four more babies will have been born”

 

 

 

In the 1960s, a new kind of fear began to spread across America. The idea that the rapid growth of population will eventually deem Earth inhabitable to mankind was powerful and controversial. It struck fear in a massive audience leading to radical proposals, discrimination against large families, and a disposition of doom that fell over largely populated areas. This alarming reality check was delivered to the world by one scientist: Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich.

Ehrlich was originally a biologist at Stanford who specialized in the study of butterflies. After one trip to the overcrowded streets of Delhi, his focus immediately changed from insects to the infestation of a much more complex species: mankind. His concern was straightforward: “We live in a finite planet with finite resources. With such a system, you can’t have infinite population growth.” (2015 Interview population bomb documentary).

Dr. Ehrlich became the grim reaper of human existence. In 1968, the biologist came out with “The Population Bomb”. Millions purchased the book and were shocked by Ehrlich’s apocalyptic prophesies. He warned that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death by the 1970’s, that 65 million of them would be Americans, that overcrowded India was doomed beyond repair, and that “England will not exist in the year 2000”. In 1970, he predicted that the end of mankind was right around the corner.

 

“Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come. By ‘end’, I mean an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”

 

 

Ehrlich’s warnings and proposed methods of worldwide birth control kick started an international trend of fear-fueled protests and demonstrations, defending both sides of the controversial argument. One in particular was headed by a former student of Ehrlich, who demonstrated what post carrying-capacity America might look like by leading a public starvation demonstration.

The biologist’s calls for immediate action led to the formation of the Zero Population Growth organization. During his appearance on the Tonight Show, Dr. Ehrlich explained the philosophy behind ZPG: “We have to get the death rate and birth rate in balance and there’s only one of two ways to do it: one is to bring the birth rate down, the other is to push the death rate up”. Support for ZPG spread throughout America as the number of members went from six hundred to six hundred thousand. Commercials and newspaper articles encouraged married couples to limit themselves to two children, creating a negative stigma for families that exceeded this number. Ehrlich’s proposals for reducing the birth rate were radical, but to him, necessary. He advocated using force if voluntary methods failed along with:  a “responsibility prize” for childless marriages, taxes on children, luxury taxes on diapers and cribs, and additive chemicals in public water that would decrease fertility.

 

 

Women protesting the sterilization of mothers: Racial discrimination became a factor in the controversy when colored families were targeted by ZPG advocates to limit their families. 

 

 

 

Student of Paul Ehrlich, leader of a demonstration that involved 60 people starving in public: “There’s too many people and we would like to see people have fewer children and better ones…

 “Anyone who’s thinking of having a third child should try going hungry for a week”

 

 

Underdeveloped countries, which are more vulnerable to the environmental consequences of overpopulation, had already started implementing birth control methods. In the mid 1970s, the Indian government went to unethical extremes to encourage mass sterilization. Some communities were bribed into sterilization with food aid and free health care, while others were sterilized by force. A 1970s American News Station reported that over 8 million sterilizations had been performed in India, many by force. The anchorman described the inhumane treatment of the women, equating it to the treatment of cattle. Another station described the scene as a

deadly assembly line where “83 women were operated upon in a span of just six hours by a single doctor.” Protests flooded the streets of India, which authorities responded to with firearms. Over fifty protesters were shot down and killed during one demonstration.

 

 

 

 

So what ever came of the feared population bomb?

As we can see by the overabundance of food in America and the existence of England and India, Ehrlich’s drastic claims did not become reality. He predicted that by the 1970s, India would be starving. The case was quite the opposite. The Green Revolution, which peaked in the 1970s and 80s, created an agricultural boom by introducing new farming techniques and technology. The population growth may have been booming, but the economic explosion left an impact that was even more powerful than Ehrlich’s warnings: optimism.

A common criticism of Dr. Ehrlich’s theories is that humans are conscious, problem-solving beings. When we see a factor that has the potential to threaten our existence, we implement regulations and awareness. An example of this would be the Clean Air and Water acts in America. We have the unique ability to change our destiny.

Many parts of the world are even dealing with the flip-side of the population bomb: a “baby bust”. Counties in Asia and Europe are calling for another baby boom to manage issues related to the aging population and a lack of women in certain parts of the world.

Although the majority of his ominous predictions did not come true, Paul Ehrlich was successful in bringing a pending issue to surface and spreading awareness. Although the national policy in India has changed and no longer requires sterilization, the country has seen a voluntary decrease in family size. The population bomb was defused by urbanization, the Green Revolution, and efforts towards food distribution. In a 2014 interview, Ehrlich admits that there are things in the past the he would not have written today. But his core message and beliefs remain unfazed by the fortunate turn of events in the world.

Adopting his infamous tone of doom, Ehrlich explains that there are currently more than 4.5 billion people in the world, and they are consuming more resources than ever before.

“I do not think my language is too apocalyptic in “Population Bomb”. My language would be even more apocalyptic today. The idea that every woman should have as many babies as she wants is, to me, exactly the same kind of idea as everybody being permitted to throw as much garbage into their neighbors’ backyard as they want.”

As the world continues to see a growth in people and the consequential depletion of the environment, Ehlrich’s ominous warnings still echo in the hearts of humanity.

“Too many cars, too many factories, too much detergent, too much pesticides, multiplying contrails, inadequate sewage treatment plants, too little water, too much carbon dioxide – all can be traced easily to too many people”

-Ellie Hunt

 

News report picture: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/06/01/blogs/dotpopcronkite/dotpopcronkite-facebookJumbo.jpg

Population bomb documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8XOF3SOu8I

Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/us/the-unrealized-horrors-of-population-explosion.html

Ehrlich 2014 portrait: https://swh-826d.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Paul-R-Ehrlich.jpg

Plan your family poster: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/12/india-sterilisation-deaths-women-forced-camps-relatives

India sterilization: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/12/india-sterilisation-deaths-women-forced-camps-relatives

Much has been said regarding the current status of the honey bee in America today.  It seems like every other week we receive a new report on the wellbeing of hives across the country.  Half of these mention that bees are heading straight toward extinction and the other half claim bees are making a dramatic comeback.  While both of these do contain some truthful parts, being that bees were once heading towards extinction but have since made a mild comeback, both statements are not entirely truthful.  In reality, honey bee numbers across America have started to rise for the first time in a ten-year drought yet we still see a massive decrease in functioning hives each year.

Colony-collapse disorder is the term given to bee hives suddenly and rapidly deteriorating, killing all the bees and destroying the hive.  Colony-collapse has many causes but almost always occurs in the winter, when the bee population of the hive drops to its lowest.  It is when the population is the smallest that factors like neonicotinoid pesticides and varroa mites can take down a whole hive.  We have known about this main cause for quite some time, and much has been done to reduce the prevalence of these toxins.  For instance, many states have banned the use of neonicotinoids as a pesticide to protect pollinators, and the EPA is already working on a federal ban right now.

However, the varroa mite is a different story; it is not some compound that the government can ban. The varroa mite is common brown beetle roughly the size of a nail head, found in nearly every country of the world except for Australia and other isolated countries.  Varroa mites begin their lifecycle as tiny eggs laid inside the comb of a hive.  Here, the mites will wait for the queen bee to lay an egg in their cell.  Once the honey bee pupa, hatches so does the mite.  The mite then attaches to the baby bee feeding off its blood while the bee consumes the honey and nectar in its cell.  The mite will remain attached to the bee for the rest of its life, feeding off its blood, eventually killing it.  Then it finds another bee to attach to. There are many common methods of removing varroa mites, from putting in varroa strips which contains a chemical deadly to the mites to even dusting the whole hive in powered sugar to prevent the mites from hanging on to the bees.  Unfortunately, almost every method used was not effective enough to prevent collapse.  Until now…

Researchers at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem have accidentally discovered that after feeding their bees tiny doses of Lithium Chloride nearly every varroa mite died.  The concentration of lithium chloride is low enough to spare the bee, but the mites are killed off nearly as fast as the compound is applied.  If further testing yields the same results as found, this could be essential in the quest to save the bees.  Leaving only the regulation of noenicitinoids as a factor for extinction.   In the end, much has been accomplished to prevent extinction, including policy changes, neonicotinoid bans, and new varroa treatments; however there is still a lot to be done to save our fuzzy friends.

-Tyler Carlson

Picture this: the year is 2050, population has soared to almost 10 billion people… and they all want to eat meat. Currently, in the United States alone, there is approximately 1 one cow and seven chickens for every three people.2 The global population as of now is right around 7.3 billion people, but rising quickly. In a world where food shortages are already a common occurrence and farmers are running out of land for crops, how will humanity adapt to these thwarting conditions?3

Since the mid-twentieth century, worldwide meat consumption has greatly increased. Assuming that this trend in consumption will not change, it is important to start considering new options to replace meat. Although tofu has become a viable alternative for many vegans and vegetarians, for others, it can be a somewhat “acquired taste.” Scientists, taking this into consideration, have begun developing an alternative to the cattle industry: cultured meat.

The process begins by growing individual muscle cells that then connect and grow into tissue. Once enough of these cells are aggregated, other hamburger ingredients like egg, onion, and bread crumbs are added for taste. This remarkable development seems like an obvious solution to the world hunger crises—meat we can grow ourselves! For all the steak lovers out there, researchers are still trying to grow longer muscle cells that are required to form steaks, but as of now only hamburger meat is possible. Although, considering the progress made in the last decade, nothing is impossible!

The process of growing cells, however, is a controversial science. In order to grow the cells, scientists must use fetal bovine serum. This serum is collected from fetal calves and remains an unsustainable source of nourishment for the cells. Yet, in recent years, the same hamburger meat has been created without FBS.

The danger with FBS—disregarding its controversial nature—is the potential harm it could effect on consumers. For example, a diseased calf has the possibility to transfer the bacteria and illness to humans. This type of chain reaction is exactly what caused the beloved Mexican restaurant franchise, Chipotle, to shut down in 2016 due to an e. coli outbreak.4

Of course, the potential benefits are difficult to understate. Less cows mean less methane, a greenhouse gas, and less of the world’s agricultural space devoted to livestock feed. Reducing the number of cows would lead to more humane treatment of animals, giving us
healthier options such as grass-fed beef.

The decision that we have to make involves evaluating the risk and reward associated with this process. Is it worth advancing the research for cultured meat? I think that our answer should be yes. Otherwise, any hopes of accommodating the wants and needs of the world is impossible. Taking into account our future population and the demands that come with it, it is imperative to break from the status quo and begin a new era of innovation and creativity. Some may say this is easier said than done, but I believe that humanity has a good track record of adapting to stress. The only factor is whether we do it sooner or later.

-Sonia Clemens

 

1 http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html

2 https://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/07/global-livestock-counts

3 https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visualizing-a-nation-of-meat-eaters

4 http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/15/news/companies/chipotle-food-safety-meeting/index.html