Hankies Help!
February 22, 2009
Every year, the average United States office person consumes 9,999 sheets of paper – 27 pounds of paper per person. Paper compromises forty percent of our municipal solid waste, revealing our out-of-control consumption. The United States plays a great part in the deforestation of about 30 million acres of trees annually. Paper mills are also responsible for extensive emissions of carbon dioxide – the third greatest source of emission on the planet. If such paper expenditure continues, it will not be long before forests are virtually non-existent and the atmosphere is irreversibly damaged. Thus, certain steps must be taken to curb consumption.
A great contributor to the issue of excessive paper use is tissues. Especially in winters when runny noses are practically epidemic, boxes of tissues are torn through daily. People constantly use tissues without considering the consequence on their own health and that of the environment in general. Even worse, alternatives to tissues are easily found! Hankies are a reasonable solution to the extreme consumption of tissues. Equally, if not more effective, hankies produce literally no waste – as opposed to the mounds of tissues produced with each onset of the common cold. However, if one simply cannot stand the thought of a reusable tissue, there are even more options. There are several products on the market that are made with recycled content and have not been bleached in manufacturing. Facial tissues which are bleached to increase general appeal also contribute to a release of harmful chemicals.
In general, tissues are completely unnecessary. The hankie is perfect for whatever task one may need it to perform. Hankies are made soft and absorbent and one can almost never run out. The price of tissues over a year is also much greater than if one were to use a single hankie for a year. If one were to consume 25 boxes of Kleenex yearly, the cost of such a choice is almost $80 dollars. A handkerchief can cost as low as $.40. The facts are undeniable, so put your days of Kleenex behind and invest in a hankie. The environment, and your wallet, will thank you.
Cracking Down on Idling
February 22, 2009
In urban areas, idling cars have becoming increasingly problematic due to the emissions they produce. New York City has experienced this issue firsthand, finding it a specifically dangerous situation around schools. The emission of toxic gases and particulates is believed to directly contribute to the increase of asthma among children. Not only does idling effect human well-being, but it releases unnecessary greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In New York City, officials are acting upon the knowledge of the dangers of idling.
Signed into law this month, the measure cuts the allowed idling time to one minute around schools. The law was put into action not only to address health and environmental concerns, but also to raise awareness of the danger of idling city-wide. In order to enforce the law, fines have been raised to range from $220 to $2,000. To coincide with the movement, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is taking steps to raise public awareness of the environmental issue. Later this year, the mayor’s office will launch a campaign with advertisements for radio, bus stops and billboards. Why such a push to end the idling?
The impacts of idling cars and trucks are detrimental. It is estimated that idling produces 130,000 tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide each year in New York City. Additionally, reports calculate that idling vehicles produce 940 tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxides, 24 tons of soot particles and 6,400 tons of carbon monoxide each year. These specific chemicals are directly linked to several health concerns – asthma the most prominent. Asthma is particularly prevalent among children and leads to the most child hospitalizations annually. Children are constantly surrounded by the dangerous emissions, seeing as their means of transportation – school buses – are among the greatest contributors to the issue. However, in 2007, the local government cracked down on the school bus companies and strengthened laws and enforcement. Slowly, the school bus aspect of idling is improving and it is expected that the new measures in New York will greatly improve air quality.
Be Wary of the Whales
December 4, 2008
Pollution. As our APES class spoke about pollution in class, it became clear that Mr. Mckinley did not like the term. Little did I know that his dislike was so just. However, as I sat down to read an article on recent effects on whales, it was not the word “pollution” that struck me, rather, it was the preceding word: sound. I had heard of air pollution, water pollution, and land pollution, but sound pollution? Becoming increasingly interested, I continued to read and I realized just how important the distinctions among the types of pollutions can be…
In Rome, Italy, the UN Wildlife Conference is being held; one of the forefront topics is the disturbance of the whale lifestyle. Although hunting, boat collisions, fishing mishaps, and chemical pollution has negatively affected the whales’ environments, a newfound issue is at hand: sound pollution. As commercial shipping, seismic surveys, and military sonar become ever-present, the sea life feels their toll.
Cetaceans, or whales, typically communicate through sounds which echo thousands of miles through the water. Such communication assists them in orienting themselves and locating mates. However, this process has been greatly hindered recently. These already endangered species are battling human-made noises throughout the world’s oceans and, unfortunately, they are losing. Additionally, the human interference has been linked with other consequences. The presence of beached whales has increased over the past year. Even more, these whales are often found with tissue damage, similar to that seen on a human suffering from decompression sickness. These telltale signs of overly-rapid surfacing have been attributed to the seismic testing performed in the ocean. Mark Simmonds, director of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, claims that “military sonar or seismic testing may have scared the animals into diving and surfacing beyond their physical limits.”
However, positive conclusions have also surfaced from the UN conference. The environment program has discussed a resolution which would require all countries to reduce the sound pollution they emit. Rerouted shipping, quieter engines, slower speeds, and more cautious use of sonar in areas inhabitated by endangered species could facilitate this end
An Unconvincing Argument
December 2, 2008
It seems never ending. The conflict over off-shore drilling in Alaska has continued for several years. However, some headway has been made in the benefit of the environmentalists against the drilling. Initially, though, the favor was on the side of those who would not hesitate to drill. This decision is, in large part, due to Bush administration’s need for instantaneous results.
Scrambling for a solution to the desperate demand for oil, the Bush administration rushed into the decision to grant drillers the right to exploit the shores of Alaska. Thus, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that the Minerals Management Service reconsider the impacts the drilling would have on the Alaskan wildlife. On Thursday, November 20th, 2008, the permission to drill off the shores of Alaska was revoked. The MMS, consequently, was extremely distraught.
Over the past thirty years, the MMS has spent over three-hundred million dollars to study the environmental impacts of drilling in the Alaskan waters. Through this research, the Shell Corporation (who would benefit from the drilling) claims that all requirements for responsible drilling would certainly be met. Nevertheless, their efforts were insufficient; the court ruled that no convincing reasons were presented. The company simply provided claims, failing to evidence their ideas. Shell and MMS stated that bowhead whales, caribou, and other land and marine animals would be unaffected; however, subsistence hunters proved otherwise – the judges were unconvinced of the drillers’ validity.
The Bison are Back.
November 30, 2008
In 1888, only about five hundred bison remained on the American landscape. Before the wildlife was ravaged, bison thrived. About 30 million roamed the prairies of the United States until three elements almost drove the animals to extinction: game hunters, European settlers, and railroad crews. Additionally, the government supported the killing of the masses of buffalo. In their eyes, the amount of bison paralleled the number of American Indians living on the land, due to the Native’s dependence on the creature. Thus, Americans were practically encouraged to rid the land of the large, harmless bison. However, the loss of the creature alone is not the only effect of the rampant killings.
The tall grass prairie once encompassed over 142 millions acres of the States. Today, only about four percent of that number remains – 5.68 million acres. The correlation of the species and its environment is undeniable. The prairie environment may be irretrievable; the bison population, however, could be revived – and it was.
Bison species are no longer in danger of extinction. In recent years, the American Buffalo has been reintroduced to its original environment. Today, about 500,000 bison roam the prairies of North America. With the reappearance of the creature, many are starting to realize its worth. The popularity of bison meat has boomed, due to the health appeal of the meat. The meat is guaranteed organic and is low-calorie. Recognizing the value, environmentalists hope that Americans will continue to help the bison to sustain life in North America. To help ensure such an end, the Nature Conservancy has bought up a great number of the bison ranches existing today. The ranchers work with the Conservancy to regulate the population, both recognizing the value these animals have on human and environmental well-being.
The Loss of Biodiversity on the Islands of Lake Guri in Venezuela
October 27, 2008
Several years ago, the area now known as Lake Guri was a vast expanse of thriving vegetation. The land was alive with great biodiversity, ranging from jaguars and harpy eagles to tiny leaf cutter ants dotting the forest floor. However, this once animated ecosystem is now quite different. Not long ago, the land was fragmented due to a grand-scale hydroelectric project. Millions of people were provided with electricity – and millions of animals and insects suffered. The ecosystems have responded to the alterations to their habitats and interesting patterns have emerged.
Lake Guri in Southeastern Venezuela
The effects that this human intervention had on the fragile ecosystems of the rainforest are undeniable. Scientists suppose that when the floodwaters from the hydroelectric project encompassed the land, the key predators fled. Nevertheless, the prey of these animals stayed behind, probably incapable of traveling such a far distance due to mobility or obstacles. Thus, the prey began wreaking havoc on the land. The population densities of nearly every organism have increased. Howler monkeys, for example, are living at 50 times higher density than they previously lived at. Not only have the living conditions been altered severely for such animals, but also their behavioral characteristics are not the same. The howler monkeys’ calls, which once echoed through the forest, are rarely heard. The young do not play nearly as much as they used to. This is most likely due to uncomfortable habitats. Just like humans, any animal in an undesirable living condition will probably be discontent. The Lake Guri islands and their inhabitants have never been the same since the fragmentation of the land, proving how the top-down mediated system of removing a higher level of the food chain can create a ripple effect down to the lowest reaches of the chain.
It may seem that at 4,400 miles away from Chicago, Lake Guri in Venezuela has little to do with our environment and general well being. However, if a raccoon, skunk, or opossum has ever spooked you this lesson applies. Normally, large predators would have controlled such pests as these. Yet, these predators are diminishing from our country due to hunting or inconvenience. Therefore, the presence of their prey – like raccoons, skunks, and opossums – has become more predominant. Additionally, the populations of deer have increased recently and as demure as deer may seem, they can pose a serious danger to drivers. If their populations were controlled, the deer would not feel the need to cross small streets or even wide highways in search of alternative food sources. Finally, the removal of top predators will only increase the gap between our modern selves and our heritage. The natural ecosystem that once ruled the land has been demolished by urbanization and human motivations. The beauty of wolves, or bears, or mountain lions can now only be viewed on our television screens. It is now our responsibility to preserve whatever wildlife we have left – including our top predators.
Going Green: An Economist’s Dream?
October 20, 2008
The trend to go green is everywhere. But before you go throwing your money into the latest green technology – are you investing economically and with environmental concerns in mind, or are you making a poor financial decision for the sake of following a fad?
In order to decipher from these two starkly contrasting situations, you can compare the pros and cons of the hybrid Toyota Prius and the fuel-efficient Chevy Aveo. Simply looking at the highway mpg, the Prius clearly takes the cake. At 45 mpg, it has a leg up on the Chevy Aveo at 34 mpg. However, when you break down the numbers and compute the total costs of the two cars, a surprising conclusion is unveiled. Continuing to consider the highway mpg (displaying the greatest fuel efficiency), after dividing the mpg by the average number of miles a car owner uses per year (12,000 miles), the Prius’ number of gallons used is significantly less than that of the Aveo’s. Once you multiply the Prius’ number of gallons used per year (266.67 gallons) and the Aveo’s number of gallons used per year (352.94 gallons) by the estimated cost of one gallon of gasoline ($4), it is apparent that the annual fuel cost of the Prius is $1066.67 and that of the Aveo is $1411.67. However, you should NOT base your decision on these numbers alone. The great difference lies in the average costs of the actual car. The Prius, at $21,500, is far more expensive than the Aveo, at $11,460. By multiplying the annual fuel cost by the number of years you own the car and then adding the initial cost of your automobile, you can find just how economical your purchase was. Simply considering these two expenses it would take not 5, not 10, not 20, not 25 years — but 30 years of Prius ownership before your total costs fell below that of the the Chevy Aveo. Even then, the difference is trivial: after 30 years you will have saved $312.70 by purchasing the Prius rather than the Aveo. Contributing to this argument, the reported average yearly maintenance costs of the Prius are over $100 more than the average annual maintenance fees of the Aveo. Adding this factor into the equation, after 30 years you would have spent $62, 170.10 on the Prius and $59, 437.80 on the Aveo. Therefore, the conclusion can be made that – even with the environmental benefits – the hybrid is a less economical purchase than a fuel efficient automobile.
In retrospect of my thought processes prior to discovering these shocking numbers, it was most likely the same as many worldwide. I automatically believed that a hybrid car was far more desirable than any other non-hybrid automobile. Seemingly ignorant now, my decision did not consider the price of hybrid cars due to the technology required to assemble and maintain them.
http://autos.aol.com/cars-Chevrolet-Aveo-2008/cost-to-own
http://www.automobilemag.com/am/2007/toyota/prius/ownership_costs.html
GOING GREEN: MONEY MATTERS
October 13, 2008
Several issues have taken the forefront of presidential debates and overall governmental concerns. Among these has been the objective of controlling global warming. However, recently the economic situation has overshadowed the environmental concerns. “Clearly it is somewhere down the totem pole given the economic realities we are facing,” said Tom Williams, a spokesman for Duke Energy Corp., an electricity producer that has supported federal mandates on greenhouse gases. Just before the economy plummeted, going green was an objective many were working towards. Nonetheless, it has been thought that “the green bubble has burst.” Not only have green advancements been overlooked, but some are concerned that green progression could even worsen the economy. The cap-and-trade bill that is believed to be the best solution for the global warming issue – under which a market for carbon dioxide would be established – could put further stress on a staggering dilemma.
Ivory Exportation — Logical or Beneficial?
October 13, 2008
In 1989 the trading of ivory was banned globally. However, 10 years later, Africa won the rights to make a one time trade to Japan. Furthermore, China was included in this trade – despite grand-scale opposition from several countries and environmentalists worldwide. Nevertheless, it was decided that China had strongly improved its rules on the acquisition of ivory, making them deserving of the trade. In fact, the Chinese law now calls for capital punishment and life imprisonment for any proof of ivory smuggling.
Recently, the population of elephants in South Africa has exploded. Last year, it was even made public that the government would have to begin killing off elephants to control overpopulation (the practice was banned since 1995). Therefore, the exportation of the resource has been once again allowed. The Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species ruled in 2007 that Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe would be allowed a one-time trade of 108 tons of the combined government stocks. However, the countries will not be allowed to export any ivory for another nine years after this transaction.
Personally, I believe the one time trade is rather logical. Because the government will inevitably have to control the elephant population unnaturally, the ivory may as well be utilized. In addition, this transaction may prevent the acquisition of ivory by illegal means. It is believed that the exportation will scale back poaching and smuggling of ivory. However, it is understandable that many environmentalists view this undertaking as disgusting and insensitive. The international elephant population is currently vulnerable, but in South Africa the population thrives. In fact, South Africa’s elephant population is expected to double in the next decade, proving a huge concern for nature in the Kruger National Park and other wildlife centers. Thus, I believe the trade will be ultimately beneficial to the well-being of wildlife and humans alike.
Pot in US Parks
October 12, 2008
In the most pristine areas of the United States, foreign substances have intruded. Mexican marijuana-growing cartels have infiltrated national forests and parks from the West Coast’s Cascade Mountains to the areas surrounding Kentucky and even Virginia. In 2007 and 2008 alone, over 700 hundred grow sites were discovered across the US. Not only is such a practice illegal, but the means by which the plants are grown has proven harmful to the environment. Weed sprays, bug sprays, and even rat poison have been utilized to maintain these farms. The run-off from these areas carries these harmful chemicals into streams and then that water is carried for miles through PVC pipes. Furthermore, the marijuana farmers have poached countless deer and bears to clear the land.
In response to the massive issue, the government has spent millions of dollars working to uproot these pot cartels. Nevertheless, little has been done to actually clean up the affected areas. The effects are detrimental to the environment – an estimated 1.5 pounds of pesticides for every 11.5 plants – but the prevention is not easy. However, something needs to be done because the pesticides presence in stream waters could possibly mean that humans are ingesting these chemicals.
