Group 5: We misidentified the metal as Iron, when it is in fact Zinc. This occurred because we calculated the volume incorrectly which thereby translated to the wrong density. In addition, we observed that the metal did not melt. Our metal also fell apart onto the table which could have been a sign of possible meltage. As for our mineral, we believed that it was quartz, when it was actually Fluorite. We did not believe it had dissolved into the test tube; however, it in fact was slightly soluble. The largest error we made, which would have helped us determine correctly what the quartz and the metal were, was incorrectly calculating the density. If we would have done this part correctly, we likely would have determined the correct mystery materials.
Fracking is currently a pressing topic in both the political and environmental spheres, as it both brings wealth and environmental dangers to communities. Where I live in Pennsylvania, fracking is increasing popular. There is a lot of Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania, making it a popular location for fracking. Fracking is very controversial: many praise it for reviving the domestic natural gas industry in the United States, while others condemn it for its adverse effects on health and the environment.
ReplyDeleteFracking is a technique in which water, sand, and chemicals are pumped into the earth at high pressures in order to reach and release pockets of natural gas. First, they drill vertically down into the earth until they reach a concentration of shale, and then they drill horizontally into the shale. The high pressure forces the natural gas up out of the earth. This process has allowed the natural gas industry to reach pockets of gas that they would not have been able to previously (BBC 2018).
However, fracking also poses a danger to drinking water. The dangerous chemicals used in fracking could possibly enter groundwater during the fracking process. This has the potential to contaminate wells and drinking water. In 2012, a common drilling chemical called 2BE was found in a Pennsylvania home’s water supply. This chemical causes cancerous tumours in rats, though its carcinogenic properties are still unknown with humans. This contamination could either be caused by poor integrity with the drilling companies or weaknesses in the wells (St. Fleur 2015).
At this time, there is an anti-fracking movement and states such as Vermont, New York, and Maryland have banned fracking. However, due to the economic prosperity that fracking has brought to the country, politicians are often unwilling to pass legislation that either regulates or limits fracking. I believe that more should be done to limit the adverse effects of fracking. Because fracking is a relatively new technique, there are not enough protections against groundwater and well contamination (Hurdle 2017). More needs to be done to separate drilling fields from people’s homes: one way to accomplish this could be to create a larger distance that drilling fields need to be away from people’s homes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/science/earth/fracking-chemicals-detected-in-pennsylvania-drinking-water.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-14432401
https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2017/04/04/with-governors-signature-maryland-becomes-third-state-to-ban-fracking/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDeforestation, defined as the action of cleaning out a wide area of trees, is one of the most pressing environmental issues today. Forests cover about thirty percent of the world’s land area, but it is estimated today that the planet is approximately losing 80,000 acres of tropical forests per day. The causes are mainly human, more than half attributed to farming, grazing of livestock, mining, and drilling. The other portion is from forestry practices, wildfires, and a small fraction from urbanization (National Geographic 2019).
ReplyDeleteNot only do trees absorb the carbon dioxide we exhale, but also the heat-trapping greenhouse gases that human activities emit. It is estimated that tropical tree cover alone can provide twenty-three percent of the climate mitigation needed over the next decade (National Geographic 2019). Yet, deforestation is still one of the greatest threats to our world today and humans are the primary sources for it. The United States has implemented laws like the Endangered Species Act, the Wilderness Act, and the Lacey Act to help protect our forests and stop illegal wood products from entering the United States (Green Peace). However, to combat this planet impacting issue we need more world leaders to embrace domestic and international forest conservation policies. We also need companies to be more environmentally conscious, especially in regards to deforestation. One idea companies could make an impact is by introducing and implementing a “zero deforestation” policy.Another important step that could be taken is ensuring that there is proper public education and awareness to this issue. In doing so hopefully those in policy positions can be influenced to help enact change sooner, before it becomes too late.This issue relates to what we have discussed in class in how much of an impact humans play on the major environmental issues in today’s day and age. Despite how much of an impact these issues play in the world we inhabit, humans still struggle to make efforts to reverse these soon irreversible changes.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/forests/solutions-to-deforestation/
ReplyDeleteWaste management is an area of my interest. Improper waste management, specifically dumping waste on landfills, has detrimental consequences on the environment and climate. Particularly, municipal solid waste landfills accounts for 16% of methane gas emissions in 2016. Methane is released when wastes decompose and it is one of several non-CO2 gases that contribute to climate change (EPA).
This post focuses on the waste management problems in New York City. NYC is America’s most densely populated city, causing a shortage in the available land for disposing of garbage. The city has come a long way with its waste management systems and continues to struggle with commercial and residential waste management (Galka, 2016).
Until the mid-1900s, the city’s primary method of disposing of its waste was dumping it into the ocean (Galka, 2016). When that option was no longer viable, the city dumped its garbage on various landfills from the borough of Staten Island to neighboring states. It was not until 2006, when the city finally committed to changing its waste management practices ( (Walshe, 2013).
Currently, the city has two systems in place for managing waste. The public system, ran by the government, is in charge of handling waste from residences and government buildings as well as some non-profits. The private system, owned by private businesses with some supervision from New York’s Business Integrity Commission, collects waste from commercial businesses. Yet, the eventual route and destination of both systems is essentially the same. Specifically, garbage is loaded onto pick-up trucks, transferred to one of the waste transfer stations, and loaded onto trains to either landfill (most likely) or waste-to-energy plants (Galka, 2016).
The city has taken some actions to resolve this problem, but still has a long way to go. For example, the city requires that both households and businesses follow the most preliminary law requiring households and businesses to separate their waste into paper, metal/glass/plastic, and mixed waste (Galka, 2016). In addition, as part of the new initiative to regulate commercial waste, the city passed a Waste Equity Bill in 2018. This bill reduced the allowed capacity for waste transfer stations in different boroughs (Greenfield, 2018).
My recommendation is to pass stricter laws about recycling of waste. More specifically, requiring people to separate waste into more specific categories (such as compostable waste) and strictly monitor the process (charge fines that are 10% higher than the current amount). Although this law might provoke some negative opinions from residents and businesses, I still believe that a harsher law is necessary in a city that produces a ton of waste for the long term wellbeing of communities. In addition, the city should try harder to motivate people to be more environmentally conscious so that less waste is produced, resulting in less pollution and odor problems from trucks going through neighborhoods.
This issue relates to our class discussion about climate change and how the emission of greenhouse gases results in climate change. NYC’s historical practice of dumping waste into the ocean contributes to the loss of biodiversity by affecting multiple ecosystems. This relates to the video that we watch on how animals were consuming plastic that they picked up on landfills and in the water. Hence, proper waste disposal is necessary.
EPA.
https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/wastes
Galka, Max (2016).
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/oct/27/new-york-rubbish-all-that-trash-city-waste-in-numbers
Greenfield, Nicole (2018). https://www.nrdc.org/stories/new-york-city-finally-cleaning-its-commercial-garbage-industry
Walshe, Sadhbh (2013).
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/new-york-waste-management-plans-conflict
Littering and particularly its effects on the ocean and marine biology is a pressing environmental issues that requires immediate action. In the pacific ocean, currents have developed a gigantic patch of garbage. Some might imagine the garbage patch as a collection of large debris but in reality it is a swirling vortex of micro plastic. Plastic is not biodegradable so it breaks into smaller and smaller pieces but never goes away. It is impossible for scientist to measure the exact area for a number of reasons. Firstly it is so large that it is hard to trawl the entire vortex. Secondly some of the heavier debris float below the surface and are impossible to measure. Scientists speculate that there is a large garbage patch on the ocean floor, below the vortex as well. North America and Asia account for 54% of the plastic waste, the rest coming from shipping and fishing waste. There are an astonishing, estimated, 700,000 tons of fishing nets within the vortex.
ReplyDeleteThe plastic waste damages marine species as they view it as food. Chicks will die of starvation when their mothers retrieve and feed them plastic pellets. Sea-turtles mistake plastic bags for jellies one of their favorite food sources. Fishing nets result in drowning seals. The massive collection of garbage also blocks sunlight from reaching algae below the surface, organisms vital to the oceans ecosystem.
There are a number of policy solutions which could help curb the dumping of plastic waste in the ocean. Firstly biodegradable materials like cardboard could be subsidized so not as many plastic and styrofoam containers would be used. Additionally, the government can ban the use of plastic bags which are a large contributor to the vortex. Lastly illegal fishing operations which often use plastic nets can be cracked down on. Currently no country takes responsibility for the patch so no there is no funding to clean it up. A compact between nations to produce a multilateral agreement would be the best way to fight back against the ever growing waste patch.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/https://theoceancleanup.com/great-pacific-garbage-patch/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe now lived in a world that is constructed based on all sorts of synthetic chemical compounds which on the one hand support our lives and on the other hand threat our future. The plastic waste issue starts to raise public and scientists’ attention and form a paradox like the usage of DDT pesticides in Africa. First, plastic is a useful and versatile material with a wide range of applications almost every corner we can think of. No doubt, plastic has obvious advantages on its affordable price, abundance, easy-dyed, plasticity, and durability. However, all these merits cannot offset the cost of the environment and potential harm to one’s health. Because plastic is cheap and abundant, people usually will throw it away after one-time use especially in tableware and packaging. The sheer volume of plastic wastes greatly leads to worldwide trash issues like overload landfills, illegal trash dump, toxic gases generate when combusting plastic, white pollution in the ocean, and microplastics accumulated through food chains.
ReplyDeleteSadly, we know a lot of ways to wisely use the merits of plastics to satisfy our needs but the scientific investigations on the aftermaths of plastic waste pollution are still in their infancy. However, the discoveries of plastic wastes in sea are shocking and alarm us to take urgent actions. The leading figure is Charles Moore who discovered Great Pacific Garbage Patch in the late 1990s. That is a stripe-like plastic waste floating between California and Hawaii that has been estimated to span around 3.43 million km² which almost the same size as Europe. (Science for Environment Policy, 2011) And more recent studies suggest the volume is “expanding itself” and researchers estimated “the area had at least 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic in the water, weighing 79000 metric tons- with more arriving every minute of every day.” (Watts, 2011)
The white pollution is on the table and even lay audiences know why there are some many plastics products in the seawater- certainly somebody dumped them. The real challenges are 1)tracing the source of trash 2) measuring the harms. The constant movements of global plastic waste post great pressures on the government to monitor the illegal plastic dump. The biggest hiding hazard is invisible microplastic which now abundant in the seawater and the long-term harms to human body are still unknown. Similarly, like pesticides, some chemical elements added into plastics such as Bisphenol A, phthalates and flame retardants are known to have negative effects on human health but the long-term effects are just unclear. (Science for Environment Policy, 2011) The current researches suggest the plastics will break to countless microplastics and enter the food chains when bigger fish feed smaller fish. And eventually, the accumulation of microplastics will reach a peak level at the top of food chain where human stand. Ironically, plastic, the material human design to storage stuff, is gradually accumulated in our body. In other words, all creatures on earth will become the living containers of the plastic containers we produced.
In order to address the global plastic issue, my suggestion for policymakers is to post strict laws on illegal dumps. But more importantly, to fund the research on green materials that can replace plastics and give subsidies to companies that promote green products. Government, plastic industries and global environmental institutions should work closely to figure out how to reprice some unnecessary plastics products (overpackaging for example) and adjust the price which compensates the environmental harms it cost. The plastic taxes or other similar restrictions could be powerful to stop today’s “business as usual” in plastic industries.
Source:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/30/first-foia-request-launched-after-climategate-2-0this-one-to-the-us-department-of-energy/
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/IR1_en.pdf
Samone Parker-Watson
ReplyDeleteOne environmental issue that interest about is deforestation. Deforestation is the process of converting forests land for non-forests purposes like road construction, farming, and urbanization which causes the mass destruction of those trees and forest areas (National Geographic and IUCN). The impacts of deforestation are great. IUCN explains how 80% of the world’s biodiversity can be found in the forest and how the lost of forest land threatens the survival of many species. It also harms the livelihoods of millions of people who rely on forests in their lives, which tend to be the world’s rural poor (National Geographic). Likewise, forests take in carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere. Thus, the degradation of forests results in more carbon dioxide existing within atmosphere which connects to the carbon dioxide emissions leading to a rise in ocean acidification, global warming and more.
Countries are taking some steps in fighting deforestation; however, their efforts don’t seem to be working. Georgina Gustin comments in her article, “Deforestation Is Getting Worse, 5 Years After Countries and Companies Vowed to Stop It,” how Nations endorsed the 2014 New York Declaration on Forest, which had a goal of reducing deforestation by half in 2020 and ending it by 2030. However, deforestation increased by 40% since launch (InsideClimate News). Similarly, Adam Morton and Anne Davies speaks about the actions Australia is taking to fight deforestation while undoing the progress they’re trying to make in their article, “Australia Spends Billions Planting Trees – then Wipes Out Carbon Gains by Bulldozing Them.” For instance, the Australian government created new policies and millions of tax dollars to climate change projects that focus on planting more trees and protecting native habitat (The Guardian). However, the Australian government stepped up their land- clearing programs and hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest land was cut down for agriculture (The Guardian). I think one policy recommendation I would establish would be a “take one, plant two” deal. Therefore, for every tree that’s cut down, people should plant two more. I also would set up strict regulations restricting how much forest land is allowed for bulldozing.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/17/australia-spends-billions-planting-trees-then-wipes-out-carbon-gains-by-bulldozing-them
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13092019/forest-loss-rate-global-deforestation-amazon-fires-corporate-agribusiness-international-declaration
https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/deforestation-and-forest-degradation
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/
One major issue that we have not talked about in class is the issue of chemical runoff in the great lakes. Many harmful chemicals are entering the Great Lakes during the wet seasons and heavy storms. These chemicals are a result of farming practices that occur along the water. Because the Great Lakes offer such rich soil along their coat lines, many farms are located in close proximity to the lakes. When flooding occurs, chemicals are transferred from the dirt on farms and are run into the lakes. these chemicals are a catalyst for harmful algae bloom that takes places in hot summer months that lake rain and wind. This bloom is extremely detrimental to the ecosystem because not only is the algae harmful to the environment, but it is very harmful to humans who are exposed to it. Many of the shorelines of the Great Lakes are lined with warning signs to make sure citizens are aware to not ingest the water, or allow the water to enter your body. Many of the signs warn to keep algae infested water away from the ears, eyes, nose, and mouth. the signs also warn to not enter the water if you are pregnant or have a weak immune system. Although algae bloom may seem less glamorous of an issue than others, it is extremely important.
ReplyDeleteMy recommendation to policy makers is to heavily tax the purchasing and use of any chemical that could prove to be a catalyst agent in the production of harmful algae blooms. this may not completely stop the issue, but I believe it would deter enough farmers from using these products in order to help the issue become less large and problematic.
sources:
http://lakeeriealgae.com/
https://www.weather.gov/cle/LakeErieHAB
Deforestation is a major issue across the world today. Trees are being cut down at an alarming rate due to agricultural land use and logging for profit. Without forests, different species are losing their habitats and food sources. This also contributes to more pollution in our air and water sources. Each year, approximately 18.7 million acres of trees are being lost due to deforestation (WWF). The lack of trees in these areas leads to many negative consequences. Biodiversity is being lessened since species cannot thrive without the natural resources previously provided by these living trees. Extinction is a huge concern in terms of the effects of deforestation as forests house around 80 percent of terrestrial biodiversity in the whole world (Greentumble). The looming threat of mass extinction and more pollution has led many people and organizations to take action.
ReplyDeleteOrganizations that deal with environmental issues have taken a strong stand against the process of deforestation. For example, the World Wildlife Fund has completed measures to stop the destruction of our forests by establishing conservation areas, advocating for bioenergy, and working one-on-one with governmental figures. Other groups, like the United States Forest Service, have implemented policies to maintain our forests in the United States. Some examples of these policies include the National Forest Management Act (1976), the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (1937), the Endangered Species Act (1973), and the Wilderness Act (1974) (US Forest Service). Besides this legislation, more policies on the amount of logs that can be sold for profit and who can access certain protected lands, should be put in place. There also needs to be stricter regulations and more oversight with these acts. The lack of oversight in rural areas like the Amazon rainforest has cost our world much of its valuable natural resources. Governmental oversight should be completed constantly and harsher punishments should be put in place. Also, organizations and individual advocates for the elimination of deforestation need to raise more awareness. Many people in our society today do not know the direct impacts that excess or illegal tree logging can have on our future. Advocacy groups and events need to be at the forefront of our society if any positive change is going to happen.
This concept of deforestation is directly connected to our Environment: Science and Policy course. Deforestation has many impacts, such as the negative correspondence it has to climate change and the change in water composition. The increase in greenhouse gasses due to the lack of absorption of carbon dioxide and these harmful chemicals relates to the changing climate that we have talked about in class. Overall, deforestation is an issue that needs to be resolved as soon as possible.
https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/deforestation-and-forest-degradation
https://greentumble.com/how-does-deforestation-affect-animals/
https://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/aboutus/lawsandregs.shtml
One issue that I am interested in is "environmental injustice." This term means that people of color and other minority groups are disproportionately affected by environmental turmoil. An example of environmental injustice is that in Philadelphia, children's blood levels are higher in low-income areas, where these children are exposed to lead paint in homes and even their water supply (Penn). Environmental justice and injustice is an issue that is not only scientific, but also political. It's anthropological and is a large public health issue. In class, we have discussed environmental injustice in terms of Flint, Michigan. The people of Flint were disproportionately affected by lead in their water supply. Not only were they ignored by policy-makers, they were ignored because of their low-income status. This environmental injustice is not only related to the scientific data of the actual lead poisoning, but also governmental policy. According to Doctor Robert Bullard, The Environmental Justice movement had its foundation largely during the 1991 National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit. Dr. Bullard stresses how mobility for low-income individuals (who tend to also be racial minorities) is usually not possible. If an environmental disaster occurs, those with more means are able to move or relocate at least temporarily. Those who are low-income do not have this luxury. (The Guardian). Mustafa Ali claims that environmental injustice is usually justified by policy makers as an economic decision (The Guardian). Young people around the world are speaking up about climate change, and namely environmental (and climate) injustices. One of the most immediate ways to address environmental injustice is to talk to policy-makers and participate in elections in order to elect candidates who will create governmental change. You can also form community organizations and protest. You can also help low-income areas when a disaster does occur, or donate your time and money to these efforts.
ReplyDeleteSources:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/21/what-is-environmental-injustice-and-why-is-the-guardian-covering-it
https://penntoday.upenn.edu/index.php/news/focus-environmental-inequities
Desertification is a pressing environmental issue that has been surfaced to the public. This occurs when drylands (area with lower rainfall) can no longer support plant life due to urbanization, mining, or overfarming. Climate change may also be a significant explanation of desertification as increased temperatures will greatly impact the health of plants. These factors will likely support drought and thus cause irreversible to the land. This will result in the erosion of soil in drylands which has negative environmental consequences. Plant-life will be crippled as they will lack nutrients and will essentially wilt away. Wildlife in these areas food sources will be compromised which causes a shift in the food chain, additionally impacting the ecosystem. Desertification is a topic of concern as 40% of the world’s land is composed of dry lands, and the environmental consequences are highly damaging, especially on a large scale. Moreover, human health is impacted from desertification as malnutrition and respiratory problems can surface due to lifeless plants and dusty, polluted air.
ReplyDeleteCurrently, the UNCCD, or the United Nations Great Green Wall Initiative, where several hundred countries “commit” to land degradation neutrality targets. This involves attempts to replenish the damage drylands and the management of water in an effort to reverse a nearly permanent issue. This may include the planting of trees or the “renourishment” of plant life. However, this is not considered effective among the impacted lands as it cannot be easily implemented on a large scale. The UNCCD efforts are generally unsuccessful because this requires working closely with farmers in a localized area, which is difficult to implement. One policy recommendation that I have would be to make preventative measures as far as the human causation of desertification. This may include policies that quantify overfarming/industrialization for farmers. This relates to the course because desertification can likely be avoided not only if more policies are implemented, but if scientific communication for this issue was better released. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/desertification/#close
Deforestation is a very important environmental issue because it has many significant effects on the atmosphere, biodiversity and the people. According to the World WildLife, “We’re losing 18.7 million acres of forests annually, equivalent to 27 soccer fields every minute” (World WildLife 2019). This is a big problem because losing such a big portion of the forest is affecting the animals that live in those areas. It is also affecting the people atmosphere because forests function as carbon sinks and losing this has a negative effect on the environment because there is higher levels of carbon emission in the atmosphere. Some of the steps that have been taken according to the World Wildlife are: plant-based conservation, creating sustainable infrastructure, creating and properly managing conservation areas, and promoting sustainable bioenergy (World WildLife 2019). Some of the policy recommendations I have will be to encourage companies to take a more environmentally friendly approach to the way they conduct business. Also have policies to hold accountable individuals who engage in excessive deforestation practices. We also need to educate the public about what is going on in our forests and its effects because I don’t think it’s an issue that is commonly talked about. This relates to class because when we talked about climate change one of the main drivers was carbon emissions and deforestation is one of the factors that play a key role in the rising levels of carbon in the atmosphere.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/deforestation-and-forest-degradation
Shane Brackup
ReplyDeleteSolo Blog Post
10/27/2019
One environmental issue I am interested in is ocean dumping. Ocean dumping occurs when waste such as, “chemical and industrial wastes, radioactive wastes, trash, munitions, sewage sludge, and contaminated dredged material,” enter the oceans. (US EPA) Ocean waste occurred frequently in the United States before 1972. Before 1972, the country was not informed about the negative impact ocean dumping can have on marine environments. The ocean dumping had harmful effects on our oceans and the EPA reports there were “high concentrations of harmful pollutants including heavy metals, inorganic nutrients, and chlorinated petrochemicals” and a “severe depletion of oxygen levels in some ocean waters.” (US EPA) The United States had to take action against ocean dumping to protect marine environments and reduce human health risks from the effects of ocean dumping.
Congress passed the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) in 1972. The act attempts to “regulate the dumping of all materials which would adversely affect human health, welfare or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems or economic potentialities.” (US EPA) This Congressional bill has led to positive results in terms of reducing ocean dumping.
International statistics gathered by researchers from the United States and Austria show that the United States efforts to prevent ocean dumping have been paying off. The statistics show the ocean dumping coming from the United States is far less than many other countries around the world. This study evaluated plastic waste levels by country. This study run by Jenna Jambeck from the University of Georgia allowed me to realize how I would recommend attempting to help fight the issue of ocean dumping. I think ocean dumping is more of an international issue than a domestic issue. The United States has implemented policies that are encouraging a reduction in ocean dumping and the statistics show Asian countries are accounting for a significant percentage of the ocean dumping occurring in the world. China in specific is responsible for an overwhelming amount of the plastic waste dumped into the oceans. I think the United States needs to pressure these Asian countries like China to help fight against ocean dumping. If they can work with these countries to implement methods to prevent ocean dumping, the world will see a significant improvement in the reduction of ocean dumping. As a result, marine environments will be improved, and humans will be more protected from health risks.
Ocean dumping is related to our class because it is an issue that is changing parts of our environmental world. We have discussed how ocean acidification is detrimental to our oceans and I think ocean dumping is a similar type of issue. It is a problem caused by humans which relates to our class discussions about the role of humans in causing climate change. The issue of ocean dumping can also be prevented by humans and I hope there will soon be a reduction of ocean dumping worldwide.
Sources:
https://www.statista.com/chart/12211/the-countries-polluting-the-oceans-the-most/
https://www.epa.gov/ocean-dumping/learn-about-ocean-dumping
I find the forest fires that have been wrecking California recently equally devastating and interesting. Forest fires always pose an interesting dilemma because it is so difficult to contain, much less put out, these fires. Fire fighters work tirelessly to put out these fires, but the size, open space, and winds all account for the fires being able to carry across the state. According to the California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection, there has been over 240,000 acres of land burned this year alone and, unfortunately, many fires are still burning. Countless people have been forced to evacuate their homes as the fires threaten their areas. Denizens of effected areas live on constant edge of having to evacuate, and loosing their entire homes. Societies cannot function with the looming threat of fires and the thick smoke that accompany the fires.
ReplyDeleteSome policy recommendations to help dissipate the frequency and size of forest fires is strict adherence to laws about putting out fires (i.e. fires built by campers, cigarettes, etc). Raising awareness of forest fires and encouraging people to be responsible and vigilant of themselves is very important. Promoting the institutions that help fight forest fires, including fire fighters, the National Guard, and the Armed Forces, can also help mitigate forest fires.
Sources:
https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2019/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/us/getty-fire-california.html
One major environmental issue that I believe has fallen out of the current media and scientific spotlight is hydraulic fracking. Fracking typically means that water, sand, or chemicals are injected into the bedrock layer in order to create bigger fractures to already existing fractures in the rock or to simply make new ones. This is done to increase the size of oil reserves. This has many negative effects on the environment including air, water, land. Methane, along with other gases are released in the process and contribute to climate change, further exacerbating the green house effect. The process of fracking uses a lot of water which is then contaminated by the chemicals used in the process. This water must be disposed of somehow, and because of loose regulations, or confusion as to enforcement, it is possible the disposal of the materials is not safe. There have been questions as to if the chemicals being used, and the contamination of water leads to possibly exposure to cancerous materials. There is a call for more regulations on this process of retrieving oil and natural gas.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/issues/fracking/https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/hydrofracking_w.html
Nuclear power as an alternative energy source to fossil fuels was considered revolutionary, and many developed countries rely on it as an energy source. However, there are a lot of dangers that come along with this low-carbon energy alternative. The world has seen the damage that nuclear power can cause. The effects of the atomic bombs dropped still exist today, through a wide variety of public health concerns as well as long-lasting radioactivity in those areas. The meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant wiped out all life within an extensive radius of the plant, and will be uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years. A current concern with nuclear energy though is the radioactive waste created by the process of creating nuclear energy, which is completely destructive of any form of life. Because of its radioactive nature, there is no way to completely get rid of nuclear waste, which can come in gas, liquid, and solid forms. The current method of disposal that is considered most ‘safe’ (in terms of containing radioactivity) is immobilizing it in borosilicate glasses (Grambow 1). They are them disposed of in deep geological formations. The main concern is whether or not this is a sustainable method of disposing of nuclear waste, because the long-term ability of the glass to contain radioactivity is unknown.
ReplyDeleteThe main concern with disposing nuclear waste is that over time, glass will eventually come into contact with groundwater and corrode, which could result in the release of radionuclides (2). As of right now, the federal government in the United States is responsible for the disposal of certain kinds of nuclear waste, but the regulation does not cover all kinds. In fact, there are estimates that “22,000 cubic meters of waste has accumulated in temporary storage all over the world.” This is waste that has not even been disposed of, which is a potential major public health issue, let alone a threat to the environment (Vidal). The danger of nuclear waste is, in my opinion, not worth the benefits.
What is even more disturbing is that nuclear energy continues to be used, despite not knowing what to do with the waste. Other options that have been considered include shooting waste into space, or dumping it on isolated islands. But these methods are expensive, and there is also no way to know if the radioactive waste will even be effectively contained. In my opinion, the costs tremendously outweigh the benefits.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/01/what-should-we-do-with-radioactive-nuclear-waste
https://watermark.silverchair.com/357_v2n6.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAk8wggJLBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggI8MIICOAIBADCCAjEGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMWIvt3WSeTCVM3-lRAgEQgIICAizZhOGqrtHnwBAfdhTH7FvPm5Q9IgrodWGfQZGgAHk-KolmN3grvw0Xp_c1ZTa3zbZv9GlIYSTs6-s77KNOjd9Zw7vF1tVScplu6BD3Vg6SiZ4dPP7UDYWqw2VHFxDrw_HAWxhCHJZuRBtym3GPeG0BDVi45c9QlsmdgQ-Rkuex_gUKtUbjSJfffjYq8EqUCDtmDoMN-rWnQKk1dDB-uoVQL8VyBs_tkGHPvO3hIv6N_uN4I0xTcEFCU2WOU3mQmuO4KmP6Fv_ApR7WlCGQeA26L3zAPJuMtUtfmB30m_oqldfeWjofqSZ4oKGaFB1-oAocsLf85NRach6V-TjM7aBj9jlArzAh4UT882H20tPw42mMSh3FCa9bR5nrB5ineS0s-5ttKSEuTO9moJBFhxIQOAY_Py9LRP-CF6IsAB-Rd_nW0kg0cWNCBxgFt5X06ry746SdWXp6Ez-PD2mAnmEv-X78B2xeNHVLFowCS6oR0knCXVBC7vU65DZ5I-6w3vOLDKI6EH46bSuL2ggwDzh4t_uRsRg2LHIPLHjTHUt_t1s9Mc1rbtHtAFyjFlM47hq0EHvlJJm3LHc1zGLHTLWv-PpIhTgt_NsOLuZtr7DNfoUVetxuQKXZZQuY_20gyu-R_qd8xUc9JIa6RgJzPMadz78kjbTWurBX__4wmm6MWIc