G Means Green

No Crap

2009-11-23T23:16:00.001-08:00

In recent years, a number of farmers have begun fertilizing their land with sludge, a bi-product of sewage and other wastes from municipal wastewater treatment facilities. As outlined in an article by renowned author Holly Dressel, posted on this blog, the small Quebec town of Elgin recently adopted a by-law banning sludge use. The by-law was challenged by a local farm wishing to use sludge, with the backing of a multinational waste management company that sells sludge to farmers. The case went to a Quebec Superior Court where the town set a legal precedent when the judge upheld the by-law. Judge Steve J. Reimnitz, in his decision on the case, invoked the precautionary principle, writing “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation”. I believe the application of the precautionary principle is appropriate in the case.

The primary concern raised by Elgin citizens (and that which influences my support of the judge’s decision) is that sludge has been shown to contain toxic substances including pathogens like flu or E. Coli, medications, hormones, dangerous chemicals and heavy metals from small industries and the de-inking process of paper recycling. These heavy metals can sterilize soils and render them useless or even dangerous for crop production. The sludge, which is shown to often wash into nearby water systems, poses further threats of measurable negative effects to the environment. Given my biocentric view of the environment, I would claim that these negative effects stand to cause harm to a number of the living things in the surrounding area, and downstream. I am often reluctant to stand behind the precautionary principle, but in this case, I believe the amount of evidence supporting the potential for harm or damage warrants its application.

As Dressel points out, Canada’s water treatment systems are unable to remove many of the harmful substances described. So, after sludge began to be used on farms in the early 1990s, a number of human deaths occurred from pathogen-contaminated sludge. Also, a number of dairy herds were sickened by pastures treated with sludge. Researchers at the Cornell Waste Management Institute stated, in an assessment, that "The sheer number of dangers associated with treating sludge as if it were a fertilizer is so great, so various and so serious that it would be the life work of thousands of professionals to divide up and respond to the categories of problems that will arise from this practice." As I discussed in my previous blog post “Degradation of Cootes Paradise”, a recent study by Environment Canada found high levels of dangerous chemicals in the dumping sites of municipal wastewater treatment plant discharge. This discharge is similar to the sludge used as fertilizer. The study described a number of harmful effects of these chemicals on many organisms.

Sludge offers farmers an alternative form of fertilizer at a cheaper price. Aside from the cost benefits, the advantages of sludge over traditional fertilizer are debatable. However, the negative effects are becoming more apparent, though they may not always be felt by the farmers who save money by using sludge. Regardless, the widespread application of sludge on vast expanses of farmland creates the potential for environmental damage and irreversible harm on a large scale. In accordance with the precautionary principle, this practice should not be allowed.

References:

http://vernonsludge.blogspot.com/2009/10/whats-happening-in-quebec-block-that.html

http://gmeansgreen.blogspot.com/2009/10/degradation-of-cootes-paradise.html

The Polluter Pays Principle and Waste Management

2009-11-23T20:41:00.000-08:00

Everyone must do their part in the prevention, reduction and clean-up of pollution, and large companies and industries are not spared from this obligation. When industries are creating large amounts of pollution, the government makes them pay for the damage they have done to the environment and for the control and prevention of future pollution. The money that the government makes them pay is part of a principle enforced by the government called the polluter pays principle (as discussed in Sharon Beder’s “Principles and Policies”). This is a concept that is discussed in the blog “Pollution partners not all paragons” written by Ellen Ley on November 22, 2009. Ley talks about the new rules being enforced in Indiana, which state that industries, companies and households that are producing pollution, must pay the government for damage control and to prevent further harm to the environment. Many large companies are talked about in the blog and they are criticized for being big polluters. They have had to pay money to the government for the amount of pollution they have created. Some of these companies include Duke Energy, General Motors and BP products.

The polluter pays principle is enforced in a strict sense which means that the polluter must pay for the cost of pollution control equipment, the cost of government infrastructure and services for the reduction of pollution, and in some cases for the administration for the government to oversee pollution control. The pollution pays principle is a sort of economic incentive because the companies are allowed to diminish their pollution however they want, but they must pay money if they do not reduce it enough. The companies mentioned by Ley were among the top 25 companies and industries that were discharging pollution into Indiana’s lakes and rivers in 2007. Because of this, the government is making them pay for clean-up of the streams and lakes and they must pay for new technology to make their companies and industries more eco-friendly in order for them to create less pollution. The companies mentioned were not managing the waste they were producing in environmentally safe ways at all, so they must be the ones who pay for the damage they have caused to the lakes and streams.

The largest steel manufacturing facility in the Western Hemisphere which is located on the shores of Lake Michigan has to follow the polluter pays principle also, because it is producing huge amounts of pollution. The steel manufacturing facility is called ArcelorMittal and it had put more than 200,000 pounds of toxins in the air as of 2007. Ley says, “All told, ArcelorMittal’s plants participating in the program have been fined more than $100,000 since 1997, according to the IDEM records” (2009). In my opinion, these companies should be forced to pay for the large amounts of pollution that they are creating because sooner or later someone is going to have to pay to have it cleaned up, so it might as well be the ones causing the problems.

The polluter pays principle works well for companies who are not managing their waste properly because it forces them to think about how much they are polluting. No company is going to want to spend more money than they have to, so it is good economic incentive for them to cut down on their waste and to handle it in cleaner fashions.

References

Beder, S. Environmental Principles and Policies- An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Earthscan, 2006.

Ley, E. Pollution partners not all paragons. A Greener Indiana, 22 November 2009. http://www.agreenerindiana.com/forum/topics/pollution-partners-not-all. Accessed 23 November 2009.

The Need for Environmental Justice

2009-11-23T17:49:00.000-08:00

Throughout history it has become evident that communities of minorities have had to suffer the burden of pollution from landfills, incinerators, sewage treatment plants and chemical industries. This is mainly due to the fact that large companies want to find the cheapest and least resistant areas for their dumping grounds, causing minority communities to become sacrificial zones for the benefit of these companies. Dickson, a small town in Tennessee, has become the focal point of this particular environmental racism issue. For years the Holt family has claimed that the poisons from a local Dickson landfill have caused some of them to acquire potentially deadly diseases, including cancer. In 2003, the family took legal action for compensation, but it remains unclear who is at fault for their mistreatment. The article “NAACP Hold Rally; Claims Toxic Well Poisoned Black Families” published by the Associated Press describes the controversial issue that is at hand, as well as the legal evidence that demonstrates the carelessness of the landfill company, the city, and the country.

The proof demonstrating that this family was a victim of environmental racism lies within the fact that their Caucasian neighbours were advised not to drink the well water. Unlike the Holt family, white members of the community were informed that their water contained the toxic chemical trichloroethylene, which was leaking from the landfill, making the water unsafe to drink. Furthermore, the owners of the landfill who resided across the street from the Holts knowingly allowed local African American families to bathe, drink and cook with the contaminated water (Associated Press, 2009).

This negligence can be connected with the equity principle, and more specifically, intragenerational equity. The latter includes justice and the considerations of what is fair for people within any one nation (Beder, 2006) and it is apparent that this principle was not correctly applied to all members who resided in the Dickson community. It is one thing that the neighbours did not inform the Holts of the contaminated water, but it is discriminative and illegal for the landfill company not to educate the entire community on the conditions of the water. If the equity principle was applied correctly, the community at large would have been informed about the issue, no matter their ethnicity or race.

This dispute also touches on human rights, which are entitlements based on morality, justice and fairness that all people ought to have (Beder, 2006). The rights of all people, including the Holt family, can be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This includes a person’s right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family (Beder, 2006). All of the families living within the community had the right to be informed of the chemicals that were leaking into the well water, and by failing to do so, the landfill company neglected these rights.

The main cause behind this controversy is that the Holt family did not receive the environmental justice they were entitled to. This term includes “the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures and income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and programs and policies” (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2008). In part, this means that no racial group should possess an unequal share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial operations. If this justice was initiated in the first place, family members would not have used the contaminated water, preventing the deadly diseases that were acquired.

Unfortunately, the Holt’s story is not the first incident concerning environmental racism. In fact, a US Environmental Protection Agency study found that “black Americans are 79 percent more likely than whites to live in neighbourhoods where industrial pollution is suspected of posing the greatest health danger” (Beder, 2006). Due to statistics such as this and inequities such as the Holt’s story, environmental justice has become a public issue, especially in the United States. By creating awareness of the environmental racism that occurred in Dickson, it will be shown how important it is that all people be given the equity and rights that they are entitled to.

References
The Associated Press. (2009) NAACP Hold Rally; Claims Toxic Well Poisoned Black Families. September 2009. http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=11082691. Accessed 22 November 2009.

Beder, Sharon. 2006. “Environmental Principles and Policies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction.” University of New South Whales Press Ltd.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2008) Environmental Equity and Human Resources. http://www.ateec.org/publ/critical_issues/ci-environ.cfm. Accessed 23 November 2009.

Cigarettes and your fish

2009-11-23T10:51:00.000-08:00

http://news.discovery.com/earth/cigarette-butts-tobacco-fish.html

We have all seen those carelessly tossed cigarette butts lying on the pavement, walked by them, thinking of all the bad habits they represent. We all know the dangers of smoking and we’re pretty sure there’s a good amount of chemicals in that one sleazy roll of paper more than enough to poison the average human being. What we haven’t thought of, or thought in good amount of, is what happens to that little poison capsule after its been discarded. In an article, “Cigarette Butts Toxic to Fish” by Michael Reilly, the unhappy ending of that one cigarette butt is explored and its implied negative effects on the environment via a recent study done are explored.

“A single cigarette butt soaked for a day is enough to . . . kill 50% of the fish swimming in it. “ (Reilly 2009) This is an alarming factoid, considering the number of cigarette butts usually found littered across beaches. Also alarming is the fact that this kind of reaction usually takes 4 smoke filters to provoke the same end (Reilly 2009). A cause of concern is that many of these cigarette butts are also littered where they can easily contaminate the water systems their smokers have recently enjoyed. Precautionary principle would tell us that the future costs of cleaning up the amount of chemicals contaminating our water systems brought on by the carelessness of smokers would be more than enough reason to put into action some plans to stop its progression.

In fact there has been talk of banning smoking on beaches by various municipalities, a clear example of regulatory control being put into effect. However just simply having government regulation may not be as effective as educating the public first on how cigarettes affect the environment. Though government regulation is effective in keeping individuals who simply do not care from causing further harm. Especially if there is a fine involved.

There are also ethical issues to consider. Though there have long been places set aside for smokers to do their thing, who are we to tell someone where they can or cannot smoke. In a utilitarianistic view however, the majority of us are much happier, and probably the environment too, if smokers kept their activities as far away from us as possible. Its also ethically unfair to have non smoker suffer from the adverse affects of second hand smoke, and similarly unfair to have no concern of what those deadly chemicals in each little cigarette can do to the animals around us. Especially disconcerting when we do tend to eat fish, and fish filled with chemicals such as nicotine and poisonous benzenes suddenly do not seem as healthy or appetizing.

If you could help keep the ecosystems around you pristine with something as simple as making sure a cigarette butt is disposed properly, would you? I don’t believe it’s too much to ask. Now that more research is being done on the negative affects cigarettes have on not only us humans but other animals as well, it makes us more conscious of the little choices we make everyday in life. A simple regulation put in place does seem the best solution to this problem, but also increasing awareness of the dangers of cigarettes would help create a public knowledge that might actually give people a reason to quit. Not to mention we’ll be able to keep eating that well loved fish.

E- waste and the Equity principle

2009-11-22T10:55:00.000-08:00

Electronic waste or E-waste is a major problem for the 21st century. Since the 1990’s, relatively cheap electronic technology has been made available to the public and this has lead to some serious repercussions. With new and improved models appearing every couple months consumers are pressured to upgrade their “old” models. In the USA alone, 350,000 cell phones and 130,000 computers are thrown out every day (Walsh 2009). As a result E-waste is becoming a major component of solid waste. E-waste is even worse than household solid waste because of the nasty combination of toxic chemicals such as mercury and lead, which if improperly disposed of can cause serious health problems for both the local environment and local human populations. For humans, these heavy metals bioaccumlate in the body and cause a range of neurological disorders.
Only 20% of the American population recycles its E-waste, but despite this effort, some recycling companies ship the waste to developing nations(Walsh 2009). Once in these countries the E-waste goes to poor people, for dismantling. The precious metals are extracted through opening burning and the use of corrosive chemicals. With no regard for health or safety, these people expose themselves and the local environment to a wide range of toxic chemicals that have been linked to a startling number of health issues. For example, Guiyu , a town in China, is a common destination for a large proportion of E-waste. Guiyu has the highest levels of carcinogenic dioxins in the environment anywhere in the world and high incidence rates of miscarriages (Walsh 2009).
This issue of E-waste touches upon many of the topics discussed in Environmental Principles and Policies, but specifically, the equity principle and the human rights principle. These two principles highlight how social inequalities are tied to environmental degradation. The E-waste issue can be considered as a socio-economic problem that inevitably leads to environmental degradation.
In theory, “equity means that there should be a minimum level of income and environmental quality below which nobody falls” (Beder 2006). Unfortunately this is not the case in the world, where a vast majority of the population lives in poverty. While burning E-waste and living in squalid conditions seems unthinkable to people living in developed countries, for the individuals of towns such as Guiyu, it is a way of feeding their families. In addition, these people generally lack an education and as a result, they are unaware of the harm that their practises are causing on their own health and the environment. For individuals who live in perpetual poverty, where meeting basic needs such as food and water are the primary concern, environmental protection is quite often the furthest thing from their minds. These people do not have the luxury of making good environmental choices because they must focus all of their efforts towards keeping themselves alive.
The human rights principle also reinforces the main points of the equity principle. Every human being has a right to life, health and general wellbeing as stated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Beder 2006). Since the most fundamental requirements for life such as food, water and air come directly from the environment it is then reasonable to conclude that in order for these rights to be met a level of environmental health must be maintained as well. The processing of E-waste directly damages the local environment and health of the local people thereby preventing their attainment of the above rights.

The E-waste issue is just one example of the conflict between poverty and environmental protection. All over the world there are similar stories, where the environment is put second to meeting people’s basic needs. In privileged countries lack of environmental action is due to apathy, whereas in developing countries, a large proportion of environmental degradation is linked to poverty. Up until recently, poverty and environmental degradation were viewed as two separate issues. But as the urgency to protect the environment increases, more individuals are beginning to realize that if we are to solve Earth’s environmental issue we will also have to address poverty as well.

References
Beder, S. (2006). Environmental principles and policies: an interdisciplinary introduction. New South Wales: Earthscan
Walsh, B. (2009). E-waste not. Retrieved November 20 2009 from: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1870485,00.html

Toronto Takes Control: The Banning of Bottled Water

2009-11-18T15:16:00.000-08:00

When trying to find a solution for reducing garbage levels and landfill use, one very popular issue comes to mind, bottled water. This fad has become a hot topic for waste management and its concerns because of the undeniable amounts of plastic waste it produces each year. Although this plastic is of high quality and in demand by recyclers, over eighty percent of these bottles are simply thrown away (Baskind, 2009). The idea of banning water bottles has been raised by several municipal governments but the city of Toronto has actually voted to ban the sale of these plastic products on all municipal premises by the year 2011. The article “Toronto bans water bottles” published by Canwest News Services explains this decision as well as other measures which the city plans to take in order to reduce their waste production.

By banning the sale of bottled water on premises such as City Hall and golf courses, the government will be implementing regulatory control in the sense that they plan to prohibit this specific action within the city and furthermore, will enforce consequences if these regulations are not met. As when other regulatory controls are put into action, an alternative has been proposed for this situation, including upgrades of already existing fountains to ensure that Torontonians have access to clean and safe drinking water (Canwest News Services, 2008). The government has attempted to approach the ever-increasing issue of plastic water bottles in the past by tactics such as moral suasion. This included stainless steel bottle campaigns and the education and awareness of plastic water bottles’ effects on the environment, but it is evident that the government felt a stronger strategy was needed to address the problem.

Others might argue that this problem could be handled using economic incentives as opposed to regulatory control. Instead of completely banning the sale of bottled water, an additional tax could be added to the cost of the product. The idea behind this tax would be that consumers would gradually become more and more discouraged to purchase bottled water and would begin to participate in more sustainable practises such as carrying a reusable water bottle with them and filling it up at the fountains. In order for this incentive to work successfully, fountains within Toronto would still have to be upgraded, therefore providing an alternative option to paying an increased amount for “packaged” water. Also, it would have to be advertised and made aware that a supplementary tax was being added to the price of the plastic product, or else consumers may be careless and continue to purchase the problematic bottles. Although command and control regulation is most appropriate when monitoring costs are very high, the process of monitoring this additional tax would not necessarily be out of proportion.

Another example of an economic incentive that could be implemented would be a deposit/cash back system. When purchasing bottled water, consumers would pay the normal price for the product as well as a small additional fee. Then, consumers would have the option of returning their emptied bottles to a specified location and would be given back that additional fee for doing so. This technique is currently used for waste products such as beer and liquor bottles as well as milk containers. It would convince buyers to return their bottles, causing more plastic to be recycled than thrown in the garbage. Also, even if consumers weren’t returning their bottles to compensate their deposit, it is likely that someone will use this system to their advantage to make a profit. Unfortunately, monitoring a process such as this might involve high costs because bottled water is such a commonly used product.

When it comes to this specific issue, I believe that it would be more appropriate to use regulatory control than the mentioned economic incentives to approach the problem of plastic water bottles and the ever-increasing levels of waste that are associated with them. I think it is necessary for Toronto to ban the sale of bottled water if the city wants to make a significant reduction in the amount of waste that enters their landfills. Although increasing the price of bottled water would divert some citizens from purchasing the product, many consumers would still not be financially affected by the additional tax. This means that bottled water would still continue to be purchased, and waste levels would not decrease by the desired amount. In the other case, a deposit/cash back system would cause more bottles to be recycled but there is still a very good chance that some would end up in landfills. For either situation, manufactures would still be fabricating the plastic product, which elucidates even more environmental concerns. If bottled water was completely banned in the city, citizens wouldn’t even have the option of purchasing it on premises (drastically decreasing plastic waste levels) and furthermore, the demand for the fabrication of plastic water bottles would decrease as well. In other situations, economic incentives have proven to be a less harsh and more appropriate approach, but as history has shown in the past, sometimes government command and control is necessary to avoid serious environmental harm.

References

Baskind, C. (2009) Five Reasons Not to Drink Bottled Water. 11 May 2008. http://lighterfootstep.com/2008/05/five-reasons-not-to-drink-bottled-water/. Accessed 15 November 2009.

Canwest News Services (2008) Toronto bans water bottles. 3 December 2008. http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1027243. Accessed on 15 November 2009.

Ban the Bottle

2009-11-17T00:00:00.001-08:00

What does the city of Toronto have in common with the small Australian village of Gundaboon? Both municipalities are currently pursuing new laws that would ban the sale of bottled water. As reported in a recent news article, Toronto City Council recently voted to ban the sale of plastic-bottled water on city premises. If the regulation is fully implemented, the Ontario capital would be the first large city in the world to adopt such a ban. Meanwhile, Gundaboon in New South Wales, Australia has implemented a similar law that bans such sales throughout the entire town. This is part of a growing trend to “ban the bottle” by municipalities and other organizations, such as universities. The University of Winnipeg also recently implemented a ban.

Proponents of the bans cite environmental sustainability as the main reason for the push. While the single-use bottles are recyclable, many do not make it into blue bins, and ultimately pile up in landfills. As many people are now aware, the plastic in these bulky bottles then takes many decades to degrade. Thus, we are seeing implementation of regulatory control in order to address this environmental problem. However, economic incentives could instead be used in attempting to reduce the amount of plastic going to landfills. These incentives could come in the form of a deposit return system. A specific monetary deposit could be required at the time of purchase, then returned to the consumer if and when they bring bottles to a recycling facility. These incentives could help to address the problem in two ways. First, consumers stand to lose money if they do not return their used bottles, and thus would be more likely to ensure they are recycled. Second, the addition of a deposit seemingly increases the retail price of bottled water. So consumers may choose not to buy bottled water, thus also reducing accumulation.

However, such a system of incentives presents challenges. It would be very expensive to implement and administer, both to the retailers and governments. Retailers would have to make changes to their transaction systems, and would bear the responsibility of forwarding the collected deposits to the governments. Governments would have to hire new staff for administration and for handling returns. The costs to the former would be passed on to the consumer, while the costs to the latter would ultimately fall on the tax-payer. In each case, this is regardless of if they buy bottled water or not. Costs to the bottling companies would be minimal. They would continue to obtain the plastic for their bottles from recycled material, while continuing to sell their product to retailers, all without involvement in the deposit return system.

In the case of bottled water and reducing the environmental impact it causes, I prefer a system of regulatory control over economic incentives. The incentive system carries many complexities and complications between the 4 groups involved: the producers, the retailers, the consumers and the government. While all but the government contribute to the landfill problem, all but the producers incur the costs of the proposed solution. Yet the producers continue to profit from sales, and it could also be argued that they contribute the most to the landfill problem by bottling the water to begin with. Therefore it does not seem to be a fairly balanced solution. Regulatory control carries less complications. A straightforward ban in a municipality directly reduces plastic accumulation in that municipality’s landfills. It also does more to improve environmental sustainability. The production and sale of bottled water creates negative impacts beyond just plastic waste. Much energy is spent in production and transportation of the bottles to market, with even more being spent during recycling. This expenditure creates pollutant emissions. A ban on sales curbs all these negative impacts. While this does greatly affect the producers, it was they who originally created the environmental problem. Water is readily available to people in almost all parts of Canada, and the developed world. The impact caused by these companies is not necessary, and their profits should not trump the environment.

Water bottling companies profit from a resource of public domain that should not facilitate private profit, all while causing negative environmental impacts. This practice, in itself should not be allowed. A ban on bottled water sales is a step in the right direction.

Reference:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1027243

Regulatory Control for Recycling in Devon

2009-11-16T16:46:00.000-08:00

The Plymouth City Council in Devon has implemented a number of tough penalties for people who do not recycle, or who put the wrong things in the recycling or the garbage. There are some residents who do not recycle properly, and others still who do not recycle at all, so the City Council decided to be stricter about enforcing the rules of recycling. In an article entitled “Householders face tougher recycling penalties” written by Richard Savill and Christopher Hope in 2008, the consequences put into place for people who do not recycle properly are examined. The city Council used to make people pay a fine of £50 if they broke the laws, but they have increased the fine to £110 if the regulations for recycling are broken, which is the maximum amount that the fines are allowed to be. They also sent around a questionnaire to each household, asking the household to nominate one adult who will be responsible for the recycling bins that get put on the curb and for what goes in them.

This makes it easier for the City Council to persecute one person because they can lay the blame on that person.

This is an example of regulatory control because the government is telling the citizens what they must do, and making consequences for them if they do not follow what they have said. In many other cities, the same recycling laws apply but it is harder for the government to be able to tell who the one at fault is when the recycling regulations are not followed. Especially in the case of apartments and houses where many adults live, the city cannot always tell who the person who should be fined and persecuted is. However, with the system set up in Devon, it is very easy to be able to tell because one adult in each household has declared themselves responsible for it. Instead of using regulatory control in this instance, the Plymouth City Council could have used economic incentives and instead of punishing the residents for breaking the rules, they could be rewarding them for following the rules. The Council is being very stringent and there are many people in Devon who are not pleased with the fines and punishments that are being brought on them. Many of the residents believe that the penalties are too harsh and it is making a lot of them not want to recycle. Erin Pickles, the Conservatives’ shadow Local Government Secretary said “We should be making it easy for families to go green, not extending the intrusive, noisy, heavy hand of the state” (2008).

Some of the economic incentives they could put into place would be to reward the households and businesses who recycle properly by giving them money for every bag of recycling they have or for every less bag of garbage they have. They can also give businesses tax rebates if they produce a smaller amount of waste. I believe that regulatory control is important in many cases and I do think it is a good idea for there to be a fine for people who do not follow the law, but I think that the fine that the Plymouth City Council in Devon implemented is too high. I think that if they used more economic incentives, more people would be willing to recycle and would not be as frustrated and angry with the government. Many people can be lazy when it comes to environmental issues if it makes life a little more difficult for them, but if there is some reason why they should recycle which benefits them directly, they would be more willing to do what is right and what they have been told to do.

Reference

Savill, R., Hope, C. Householders face tougher recycling penalties. Telegraph.co.uk. 27 May 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2038124/Householders-face-tougher-recycling-penalties.html. Accessed 14 November 2009.

E-waste

2009-11-09T09:57:00.000-08:00

In our technologically dependent world it’s easy to get lost. We strive for the latest updates, the latest models, replacing and tossing the old obsolete machines. All in the name of progress, because each new thing is supposed to be better and faster than the last. However we rarely stop to think about what we are actually throwing away. Recycling is promoted everywhere these days, but few people connect their plastic bottles and cans with computers and other digital devices. An incredible number of computers and television end up as garbage. Most of this garbage is then shipped to some third world country where they leak toxic chemicals that damage the health of both people and the environment. Over the past few years this problem has become increasingly prominent and countries are hard pressed to find solutions. The issue is discussed in the article “U.S. Lags Behind World with Its Patchwork Approach to Curbing E-Waste,” by Larry Greenemeier released by Scientific American.

“Although the U.S. is one the world's largest producers of electronic waste (e-waste), it is hardly a leader in addressing this problem” (Greenemeier 2009) Without a nationwide enforced policy manufacturers of electronics cannot design their products to a specific design. Which allows them to create products that are supposedly “green” without having a definite guideline or enforcement. “They estimate that obsolete devices in U.S. households add up to 747 million pieces of potential e-waste—more than 1.36 million metric tons” (Greenemeier 2009) This issue clearly calls for some form of regulatory control. The most obvious method would be to create laws and policies to restrict the manufacturing of these products. In Europe there are several policies put in place that restrict what electronics can be sold, they have banned new electronics that contain above the stated levels of toxic chemicals like lead, cadmium and mercury as well as a number of others. The fact that, “Both the Senate and House are only now considering versions of a proposed federal law to fund electronic device recycling research, development and demonstration projects.” (Greenemeier 2009) shows how behind the United States are on this particular solution.

There is also the option of adding economic incentives to recycling, which is a more difficult solution because it depends more on the consumers than any government law. If an economic incentive were put into action it would most likely consist of consumers rebates for every piece of e-waste they recycle. The government could also offer manufacturers benefits to designing more environmentally friendly electronics, for example tax credits. The more difficult of the two options would be to get more consumers to recycle their e-waste. Many are simply too lazy or indifferent to the environmental impacts they can cause. A cash incentive could be effective however it would depend on how large an incentive. A direct cash incentive would limit the amount consumers would get for each e-waste, putting a strain on the amount of money the government could spend on other things. A tax rebate could also be established, but there are no immediate results for the consumer. Promoting e-waste recycling in educational forms would be beneficial as well however the government would have to spend a large sum of money for this too.

The problems of e-waste are pretty simple in they’re cause and effect. E-waste release toxic chemicals into the environment that hurt both people and nature. The solution to e-waste however is not that straightforward. There is always the simpler method of creating laws and policies that limit the amount of toxic chemicals that can be used in manufacturing electronics or restrict the forms of disposal. A more indirect method would be to create incentives in either cash or tax for consumers and manufacturers. However the later solution may not be as effective because it depends on consumers themselves to take action, and with many either laziness or indifference can stop the process. For this particular issue I believe that government intervention would be the most efficient method, in both result and amount of money spent. I believe that proper policies must be put in place first before and economic incentive can be placed, most likely in the form of a reward and penalty cycle. Reward for recycling the e-waste and penalties for not following policies put into place.

References:

Greenemeier, Larry. U.S. Lags Behind World with Its Patchwork Approach to Curbing E-Waste. Scientific American. October 29, 2009. Accessed November 5, 2009 from: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=electronic-waste-control

The Ban on Plastic Water Bottles: Enforcement Through Penalty or Reward?

2009-11-07T11:24:00.000-08:00

http://capefearbusiness.com/?p=3162
Land is a precious resource that is in limited supply. One of the biggest problems with solid waste disposal is finding enough space to safely contain all the trash that we produce. In order to address this issue waste management programs in developed countries have established a number of recycling and composting programs. The purpose of these programs is to divert as much waste as possible from sanitary landfill sites in order to extend their “life expectancy”. Despite the existence of well established recycling and composting programs some members of the general public choose not sort their waste. In response some local governing bodies have chosen to implement regulatory laws that crack down on these individuals.
For residents of North Carolina, as of October 1st 2009, a law was passed that makes it illegal to dispose of plastic containers in the garbage. The law applies more to municipalities and companies that handle waste disposal, however it still requires residents to sort their trash and bring their bottles to recycling facilities. North Carolina has some of the largest plastic processing plants. Landfills will be inspected periodically, but individuals are only going to be given a large fine if they are found disposing large amounts of plastic containers. However this ban poses a problem for residents that live in municipalities which do not have an established curb side recycling program or convenient access to recycling facilities. Some individuals have to drive their plastic waste over long distances in order to reach recycling facilities. The goal of this ban is to increase the number of plastic bottles recycled in the state. Due to the inconvenience of recycling for some individuals, and the lack of strictness towards imposing this new law it is reasonable to contemplate whether a more effective incentive can be implemented.
Another approach that could be taken towards implementing this law is providing economic incentives for companies and even residences. The law that plastic containers are to be banned from trash should still be upheld; however instead of applying a penalty, a reward could be instated instead that is using a carrot instead of a stick. On the individual level, plastic bottles could be collected in a system similar to beer bottle collection. Residents could be given a small sum of money per plastic container. These containers could be returned to special collection facilities. Another form of economic incentive that could apply to large companies could be a tax rebate or a tax reduction based on the amount of plastic recycled in a year. The companies and individuals could be paid money for recycling rather than having to pay a fine if caught not recycling.
I personally believe that the most effective system would be a combination of both regulatory control and economic incentives. Since North Carolina has some of the largest plastic processing plants already established, the new plastic recycling load should be relatively easy to accommodate. In addition, for areas that do not already have established recycling programs this law will provide impetus and ultimately result in more jobs. Since it would be highly inefficient to establish expensive surveillance systems to constantly monitor the plastic content of the trash, economic incentives should be provided. These incentives, such as small monetary sums or tax deductions, persuade people on the individual level to follow the law for reward rather than for fear of punishment. That being said a large monetary penalty should also be established in order to discourage individuals for whom the reward is not a sufficient incentive. This penalty should also be strictly enforced if an individual is caught.
In reality when trying to implement environmental change, both regulatory control and economic incentives offer positives and negatives. In certain situations one may be preferential over the other. However in this scenario, a combination of both regulatory control and economic incentives offer the optimal situation for both the local municipalities and residents.

A Burning Tire Question

2009-11-02T23:15:00.001-08:00

This recent post on the website of the group Energy Justice discusses the implications of burning rubber from discarded tires as fuel for industrial processes, and argues against the practice.

Rubber burned in these processes comes from waste tires that are shredded to become tire-derived fuel, or TDF. This fuel is burnt along with conventional fuels like coal, to power industrial facilities such as cement kilns, pulp and paper mills, incinerators, and power-generation plants, and is generally cheaper than conventional fuels.

One benefit of the practice is that it puts to use the many millions of discarded tires that currently sit in landfills and junkyards throughout the world. According to Energy Justice, 290 million tires are discarded every year in the United States alone. Immense piles of these tires occupy large areas of land. They pose potential threats of large tire yard fires that are often nearly impossible to extinguish.

Facility owners contend that TDF combustion is safe and that its emissions are non-toxic, noting a number of studies and governmental assessments. However, Energy Justice points to other scientific studies that challenge these assessments, finding evidence that TDF combustion releases toxic pollutants. These include dioxins and furans, chlorine-based pollutants, heavy metals and hydrocarbons, all of which are released into the air, posing a danger to human health (particularly to local residents living near the facilities) and to the environment. Energy Justice also speculates that during these governmental assessments, facility owners adjust the combustion operating parameters from normal day-to-day parameters, in order to achieve less toxic emission test results. For these reasons, Energy Justice argues that TDF should not be used in these industrial processes.

When considering who counts morally in this issue, let us look at those who are affected by the operation of, and emissions from TDF-powered facilities. Firstly, owners and employees of these facilities are affected, and thus count. Local residents living near these facilities are also affected and therefore also count. Beyond this, it could be argued that airborne emissions spread over a large area, impacting animals, plants, insects and microscopic biota, as well as the air, water and soil of the ecosystems they inhabit. Energy Justice’s argument includes references to impact on the “health of the environment”. The post also cites remarks by ecologists who comment on toxic effects to ecosystems. Therefore, Energy Justice seems to argue from an ecocentric point of view, claiming that entire ecosystems count morally.

However, ecosystems as a whole can not be shown to have interests of well-being. As such, they can not be harmed, other than harm done to sentient individuals of these systems. Therefore, ecosystems do not have intrinsic value, and should not count morally. In this case, only sentient beings should count morally.

When looking at this issue from a utilitarian perspective, both immediate and long-term consequences deserve consideration. The continued operation of these facilities means immediate happiness for almost all humans who count in the issue. They produce affordable electricity and materials, used by humans in many pleasure-yielding pursuits. They provide employment for people living in the area. They clear yards of old, dangerous tires, freeing valuable land for more pleasurable uses, such as parks, schools or malls. Immediate unhappiness-causing consequences would be limited to potential discomfort from emission odours, if any.

To a utilitarian, the temporal scope of relevant consequences is usually limited. Any pain caused to humans (or other sentient beings) can’t be immediately quantified. Long-term consequences, such as potential illness from prolonged exposure to TDF emissions, would not be relevant in this case. A utilitarian could even argue that without direct proof of guaranteed development of illness, there are little to no pain-causing consequences from these facilities. Therefore, a utilitarian point of view would conclude it is ethically right to allow the operation of TDF-powered facilities.

A deontologist perspective would only consider if TDF-powered operations are right or good acts, in and of themselves, regardless of consequences. As in Kantian ethics, this point of view generally wouldn’t regard ecosystems or even sentient beings other than humans.

Also by virtue of Kantian ethics, anything to be considered right must adhere to moral rules. Moral rules are those which rational agents would freely choose to have govern them. Therefore, a deontologist could ask: would any rational agent who counts morally in the issue choose to have TDF emissions released into the air that they frequently breath? Since local residents already face this situation, let’s instead look at the facility owners. If these emissions are indeed safe, as facility owners contend, then the owners would choose yes, and burning TDF would be morally right. But if the emissions are in fact toxic, as Energy Justice contends, then owners would likely choose no, and the operation of TDF-powered facilities would be morally wrong.

Reference:

http://www.energyjustice.net/tires/

Landfill Expansion and its Ethical Dimensions

2009-11-02T20:01:00.000-08:00

As time evolves and we continue to produce more waste, we are subsequently running out of room for this garbage. Large waste removal industries have found solutions for this issue, but unsurprisingly, residential communities are not happy about it. Plans have yet to be finalized as to whether the current landfill in the Californian city Simi Valley will be expanded or not, but it is obvious that the majority of the reasoning behind this delay comes from the various potential impacts (including economical and environmental). The article “Concerns over landfill expansion bubbling up”, (October 2009) by Carissa Marsh describes the opposing viewpoints of the argument and how the impacts, both positive and negative, affect each party.

When analysing this specific situation, it is important to differentiate who or what counts morally, therefore leading to the demarcation problem. Of course this is not a simple question, considering there are three main conflicting groups with three contrasting views. The garbage company who is heading the expansion believes that it is humans who count morally. By increasing the size of the landfill, more jobs will arise, more money will be made, and humans will still have a place to dispose of their garbage. In their mind, these benefits outweigh the other opposing negative impacts, creating an anthropocentric view point. The local residential members living within the area of the proposed landfill also have taken a stand which is human morally based, but for the opposite reasons. They believe the landfill augmentation will hurt their community’s overall happiness in terms of increased traffic, visual impacts, and odours. The remaining group is environmentally based and believes that the health and the well-being of the environment is what morally count, leading to a biocentric holistic perspective. The addition of the land fill will cause an increase in pollution and destruction of land.

After distinguishing the various morals involved in this argument, an ethical decision has the potential to be made. Unfortunately this will not come easy seeing that there are two “schools” of ethical theory. From a consequentialist point of view, the decision would be based on likely outcomes, and more specifically how many people would benefit from the existence or non-existence of the expanded landfill. If the plans for the landfill were to go through, humans would benefit economically. More workers would be needed to run the site and to transport the garbage. Also, the waste removal industry itself would be increasing their profit. Lastly, humans would temporarily have no need to worry about not having a place for their waste. On the other end of the spectrum, if plans for the landfill were ceased, residents would not be succumbed to increased truck traffic and wear and tear on the highway, the aesthetics of their community would not be compromised, and there would be no unwanted odours.

From a non-consequentialist’s viewpoint, the rights of the parties involved have to be considered. The locals have the right to a happy and healthy life, which includes a positive visual image of their neighbourhood and prevention of pollution due to an increase in truck traffic. In comparison, the operators of the company who are in favour of the expansion also have the right to allow their business to prosper. Another set of rights that need to be taken into consideration are those of future generations. They are entitled to a clean and healthy planet and environmentalists argue that the transportation and burying of garbage included in this hypothetical landfill would prevent this.

By exploring the different ethical dimensions implied by the author, it is evident that a lot has to be taken into consideration when making an ethical decision. When determining whether or not continuation of this landfill expansion should be allowed, not only does the demarcation problem come into effect, consesquetialism versus non-consequentialism views play a major role as well.

Reference
Marsh, C. (2009) Concerns over landfill expansion bubbling. 23 October 2009. http://www.simivalleyacorn.com/news/2009-10-23/Front_Page/Concerns_over_landfill_expansion_bubbling_up.html. Accessed 2 November 2009.

Nuclear waste problems

2009-11-02T15:48:00.000-08:00

Nuclear power is a tricky issue and society is hypocritical about their stance on its usage. On the one hand it’s able to provide energy for our everyday needs while relieving some of the dependency on fossil fuels, which has well known negative effects on the environment. However when it comes to the problem of storing the nuclear waste, no one wants to be responsible. We push it onto someone else’s shoulders, who push it onto others, and when there’s nowhere willing to take on the burden and the hype the government must step in. An article by Michael Wild “Hunt for nuclear waste dumps” details the nuclear waste dilemmas in Britain where the government is hard pressed to find a community willing to house a pocket of nuclear waste.

To try and solve this issue and make it more appealing to local communities the government has proposed a number of inducements as compensation, “a share of a £25m payout over the next 10 years, if the local council gives permission for an existing waste dump to be extended” (Wild 2008). The ethical issue with this solution is that it plays more like a bribe than an answer. It raises a number of questions like, are the affects on the local people being accurately considered when there is such a large sum of money in the balance? Community councils may be willing to agree to a nuclear waste storage site simply because they want the money without properly gauging the impacts it would have on their communities. Especially since these plans also include the high level radioactive waste, “which will remain toxic for 250,000 years,” (Wild 2008). The health risks of any leaks are should be considered; communities may be willing to accept the £25m without proper knowledge of what they are fully agreeing to. Therefore from an ethics point of view offering large sums of money to entice communities into storing nuclear waste is not the right thing to do.

From a utilitarian point of view, that large some of money could guarantee the happiness of a large amount of people. If a community had £25m at their disposal they would be able to upgrade and provide better services for their people. For example upgrades in schools and youth programs or welfare. However many people are not happy with a nuclear waste site anywhere near their community. They are afraid of the health risks and the inevitable falls in property value and the stereotypes and press that will come along with that £25m. Therefore its hard to determine what a utilitarian standpoint would be since it is difficult to gauge the overall happiness £25m can bring versus the negative effects of having the waste will cause. However it is easier to argue this solution from a utilitarian standpoint because of the minutely small possibility of any health affects, “It is mixed with cement, packed in steel containers and then left underground in huge concrete vaults,” (Wild 2008)

Overall I believe this issue needs more debate, offering money for storage space does seem very suspicious, but public hype on nuclear waste won’t easily convince a community it is acceptable unless there is a very large payback. Educating the public may help but there are too many stories in pop culture and also events in past history that would slow the progress. Making education too slow of a process to be considered for an issue that needs to be solved relatively quickly. However educating communities that might be willing to accept the money about the adverse affects it might have not just on health but also on their trade and property values should be the best method.

Resources:

Wild, Michael. Hunt for Nuclear Waste Dumps. BBC. January 17, 2008. Accessed October 29, 2009, from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/politics_show/7192291.stm

Controversies of expanding a landfill over an aquifer

2009-11-02T15:27:00.000-08:00

The residents of Northampton and Easthampton are currently trying to vote on whether or not the Glendale Landfill (an already existing landfill) should be expanded or not. There are some controversial issues surrounding this proposed action. First of all, the landfill would be expanded over the Barnes Aquifer which is a public drinking supply for four cities and towns in the region. However, the existing landfill is said to reach capacity in 2011, and if it is expanded, it will give the landfill an extra twenty years of life. The Barnes Aquifer Protection Advisory and the residents are all mostly in agreement that the landfill should not be expanded over their aquifer. The people who would be in charge of building the expansion of the landfill and some politicians and residents are for it. This controversial problem is described by Dan Crowley in an article called “Controversial landfill question on ballot Tuesday”.

The group of people who are for the expansion of the landfill take more of an anthropocentric view, because they are only thinking about the well being of humans in this situation. The expansion of the landfill would provide many more jobs for people to construct it and they are looking for a fast and simple solution as to where we can put our garbage. These people is not considering the well-being of the environment or ecosystems and habitats as it will pollute the air, diminish the amount of potable water, and destroy ecosystems. The group of people that oppose the expansion of the landfill take more of a biocentric stand when it comes to this issue. They also think that the humans are important in this case because it is the people living near the landfill that will not have as much potable water and they will have to deal with the pollution produced from the landfill. However, they are also looking at the animals that will be killed during the construction and the ecosystems that will be destroyed. Many animals will be forced to move to other habitats, since theirs will be taken over by the landfill.

The demarcation problem in this case deals with who or what counts morally. For the anthropocentric point of view, it is the humans that count morally and because of this, they believe that the landfill should be expanded to provide more jobs and have a place to put the waste for many more years. For the biocentrism view, it is all living things in this region that count morally, and in this case, that would be the people and the animals living close to the landfill.

The consequentialist’s view looks at the aggregate happiness of the people depending on which decision is taken (utilitarianism). If the landfill is built, then the construction workers, employees of the landfill, and people in charge of waste management would be happy, but the residents living near the landfill, the Barnes Aquifer Protection Advisory Committee and many environmental groups would be unhappy. If the landfill is not expanded, then the opposite groups would be happy or unhappy. In my opinion there would be more aggregate happiness if the landfill is not expanded because there seem to be more people who are opposed to the expansion of the landfill and therefore they would be happy if it is not expanded. The Barnes Aquifer Protection Advisory Committee said that “the long-term risk to the aquifer far outweighs the short-term benefits of expanding the regional landfill” (Crowley 2009).

In terms of the non-consequentialist’s view, the rights of the different groups of people need to be considered. However it is difficult to say whose rights are more important in this situation. The residents living near the landfill should have the right to clean and accessible drinking water and a safe environment to live in, but the rights of the workers of the landfill should have the right to a job.

The issue of whether to expand the landfill or not is a difficult one because there are many different points of view that can be looked at in terms of the ethics of it. I’m not sure what the right decision would be, but in my opinion, everyone’s point of view must be looked at and considered before a decision is made.

Reference

Crowley, D. (2009). Controversial landfill question on ballot Tuesday. 31 October 2009. http://www.gazettenet.com/2009/10/31/controversial-landfill-question-ballot-tuesday?SESS2949f326616af77dbcbacb4be4b7bb81=gnews.

Accessed 2 November, 2009

Nationwide 21: To Dump or Not to Dump

2009-10-28T11:08:00.000-07:00

http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/public_hearing_on_mountaintop_mining_waste_draws_large_crowd/34312/
Humanity’s addiction to fossil fuel is both its greatest strength and weakness. Since the Industrial revolution humans have been able to successfully harness energy from fossil fuels to build modern empires and power them. Of these sources oil and coal continue to be the primary sources of energy worldwide. But this attraction is a fatal one; while coal is a relatively cheap and simple source of energy it also generates large amounts of pollution which compromise both environmental and human health. Despite this fact, coal mining continues to be one of the largest industries in developing countries. Before coal is even incinerated, it creates serious environmental impacts. Surface mining scars the land and creates large amounts of mining waste, which needs to be disposed of. One of the biggest challenges for mining companies in the United States is to find and get the permit for a waste site. However, there is a permit known as Nationwide 21 which enables mining companies go through the waste site permit process more efficiently and thus speed up the mining process. On October 16, 2009 a hearing took place in Big Stone Gap Virginia to debate whether Nationwide 21 permits should no longer be issued.
There are many ethical issues that come with this issue, and the position in which an individual takes depends on what they deem morally significant. Mining companies who support Nationwide 21 argue that it allows Mountaintop mining to work more effectively and therefore employ more people. It is clear to see that for the mining companies only humans count morally, and that their well being is directly tied to their job. The mining companies do not even mention the environment or any other species other than humans, this view is anthropocentric. For the environmental activists who oppose Nationwide 21 take a more biocentric holistic stance. The environmental activists argue that Nationwide 21 allows mining to operate more efficiently therefore the rate of environmental destruction that results from mining is also increased. Morally, humans, sentient animals, non- sentient animals and non living entities such as ecosystems and species matter. It is the environment as a whole which supports the survival of the organisms inhabiting it and the organisms themselves, including humans which matter.
If Nationwide 21 permit regulation were to be changes then mining companies would have a a harder time establishing mining sites due to the inefficiencies associated with acquiring an individual permit. This would lead to a decrease in mining productions therefore less environmental degradation. However the companies argue that this decrease in productivity would also lead to a decrease in jobs and of the coal industry in the area. A consequentialist in this situation would say that Nationwide 21 should not be banned because it positively impacts the interests of humans. The ecosystem in this case only has value to the humans in the area because they can extract resources from it. The health of the ecosystem itself does not matter. By being able to harvest the coal from the environment humans are able to have jobs, therefore support themselves and achieve a level of happiness. Therefore more humans benefit from not having the permit banned. In contrast a non consequentialist would argue that Nationwide 21 should be banned because it allows increases the rate of mining. The environment in this case does have intrinsic value outside of its ability to provide humans resources. The allowance of mining degrades the local environment, the species living in it, and contaminates the water table, which is accessed by people from outside of the local area. Morally the environment, the other species and the people from around the area who access the water do matter and therefore it is important to protect their interests as well. Although some people might have to find other jobs, the environmental protection for the surrounding area and people far outweighs this as jobs can be replaced, but the environment health of the environment cannot.

Analyse Trash

2009-10-26T22:56:00.001-07:00

In a recent New York Times article, columnist Leslie Kaufman discusses new trends in waste management and recycling. Kaufman highlights many initiatives by organizations and individuals across the United States to reduce the amount of garbage sent to landfills and incinerators. These include diverting organic waste to compost systems, sending more recyclable materials to recycling programs and using more biodegradable products. Kaufman points out that many Americans, like many people internationally, have become very aware of these waste issues and are part of a growing movement toward producing less trash.

Kaufman writes “Americans are still the undisputed champions of trash”. This phrase requires conceptual analysis to avoid misunderstanding.

The author may have meant that when comparing all nationalities, Americans are doing the most to reduce the amount of trash sent to landfills or incinerators. A champion is generally defined as the one person (or group of people) who performs at the highest standard of a certain endeavour. The main context of the article is reducing trash, therefore this could be the endeavour.

But the author could also have meant that when comparing all nationalities, Americans produce the most amount of trash sent to landfills and incinerators. The article also discusses producing trash, so this could also be considered the endeavour.

The ambiguity lies in a number of concepts. Firstly, there is no indication as to the action or verb relating to trash. Are Americans the champions of producing trashing or reducing trash? This is not clear in the phrase.

Secondly, the word champion suggests the leader of a positive pursuit, while trash is a negative thing. Therefore it is not clear if Americans are doing something positive against a negative thing, or if they are the leaders in doing that negative thing.

Finally, Kaufman follows the phrase by saying that Americans produce 4.6 pounds per person per day of trash. However there are no other statistics for comparison. Therefore, we don’t know if Americans are producing less trash than they did in previous times. Further, we don’t know if they produce more or less trash than other nationalities.

References:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/science/earth/20trash.html?_r=2&hp

Global Cooling vs. Global Warming

2009-10-26T15:37:00.000-07:00

While it is not widely recognized that waste prevention and recycling are critical to reducing climate change, many environmentalists believe that it is necessary to focus on these practises as we try to minimize our levels of greenhouse gas emissions. An example of this necessity can be seen in waste-to-energy plants, where heat and electricity are created from burning mixed solid waste (Evans, 2008).

In Steven Evans article, “Landfill Problems and Global Warming Effects”, he describes current issues that arise from landfills and how they contribute to global warming. He also explains how the adoption of large scale waste prevention and recycling will help address global climate change (Evans, 2008). While doing so, he makes mention of current global warming controversies and compares it with the concerns of global cooling that were in existence in 1997. He states, “The perspective in global cooling is similar to the way people view global warming now” (Evans, 2008). This phrase requires conceptual analysis to avoid misunderstanding in the sense that there are various ways in which people presently view global warming. From reading the context that surrounds this statement, I believe that Evans meant that there were many controversies with the idea of global cooling, as there is now with global warming. He is implying that during the period when global cooling was a major issue, many people questioned the predictions of which it was based on, and the same can be said for global warming. Examples of the bases of these questioned predictions could include previous ice ages, the depletion of the ozone layer, and climate change.

A possible misunderstanding that could be derived from this statement is that since a portion of society believes that global warming is indeed scientifically proven and has concrete, evidential proof, such as the disappearance of glaciers, this must be how global cooling was perceived in the late 1990’s. On the other end of the spectrum, since another common view on global warming includes the idea that it is non-sense, and is just a political scheme, this may lead readers to interpret that the perspective for global cooling was the same.

I think it is important to arrive at the correct interpretation of this phrase, as well as in any other piece of writing that is environmentally based, because if the reader misapprehends it, the relevancy of the article is lost. In this case, the purpose of Evan's statement was to show that not all members of the community at large are on board with large scale waste prevention and recycling since there are still questions remaining about the idea of global warming. This in turn relates back to the same response that occurred during the time of global cooling concerns.

Reference
Evans, S. (2008) Landfill Problems and Global Warming Effects. 5 December 2008. http://www.articlesbase.com/technology-articles/landfill-problems-and-global-warming-effects-672693.html. Accessed 25 October 2009.

Recycling Computers and E-Waste

2009-10-26T12:47:00.000-07:00

The use of computers and technology can both be a very good thing for our society, yet a very harmful and detrimental thing for our environment. Technology has advanced a lot over the years and it has really helped us to become more efficient in what we do. Computers are a form of technology which has done wonders for our society. Computers have allowed us to do much more in a much shorter time span. However, even though these new advances in technology have been great for our economy and society, they have been less than ideal for the state of our environment. Newer models of computers are coming out all the time and the older ones which become less efficient must be replaced. But what happens to these old computers when no one can use them anymore? Many of these old computers are being dumped in landfills which can be very dangerous to the environment. Most of the components used in creating computers are highly toxic and since they are being left in landfills, when we decide to finally dispose of them, the environment will be in grave danger.

In the blog “Get greener by recycling your computer equipment”, posted by the administrator in the blog “Computers”, the recycling of old computers and computer parts to prevent further damage to the environment is explored. The blog explains how there are many companies who are willing to take old computer parts for cash to recycle and reuse them. One of these companies is Staples, where you can go and drop off your old computer equipment with a ten dollar handling fee, and they will reuse the parts and recycle the parts that they cannot use properly.

The administrator writes that “It will be a dark day for the environment when we all finally decide to dispose of this clutter” (2009). This sentence has several meanings to me. First, the author means that it will be a very gloomy and horrible day when we dispose of our electronic waste. In this scenario, the author is using more colour imagery because they are using the word “dark” instead of “light” which refers to the feelings that people will get because of the disaster the environment will be in. It also has a more literal translation. The blog talks about the harmful chemicals found in batteries, cathode rays tubes and circuit boards which are dumped into landfills and can leach into soil and water, making them very polluted. These components of computers are also often put into incinerators which produce very toxic pollution in the air. In the literal way, this sentence can be seen as all of the pollution making the land, water, and air “dark” with pollution, so “it will be a dark day for the environment”. This sentence has some ambiguity to it, in that the readers can take it to be the literal meaning that it will be a dark day because the land, water and air will be dark with pollution, or that it will be a dark day as in a gloomy and horrifying day. However, although this sentence can be taken to mean two different things, both meanings agree that it will be a disaster when we finally dispose of our old computers and electronic waste.

Reference“Get greener by recycling your computer equipment” October 26, 2009. “Computers” Accessed October 26, 2009 from http://www.bigsurpowerdown.org/2009/10/26/get-greener-by-recycling-your-computer-equipment/.com

North Pacific Garbage Band

2009-10-26T12:38:00.001-07:00

Plastic has always been a main concern in landfills and only recently has public attention been turned to its effects on ocean environments. One widely spread image is that of an unknowing sea creature snagged in the plastic waste of our cast offs. Previously it was thought that this was the extent of plastic’s effect on ocean ecosystems. However now scientists turn their concerns towards the masticated plastic debris trapped in the ocean gyres, plastic particles that are small enough to affect the lowest chains of food. This is the focus of the article “Great Pacific Garbage Patch Swells” by Michelle Rindels.

“Seeing that influence just floating out here in the middle of nowhere makes our power painfully obvious, and the consequences of the industrial age plain” (Goldstein 2009). This statement quoted by the associated press encompasses many environmentalists’ views on plastic debris in the ocean environment. The quote comes from Miriam Goldstein who headed an expedition to document the stretch of garbage found in the north Pacific.

I believe that Goldstein meant a number of things when she stated that “our power is painfully obvious.” From a negative standpoint it could point the finger at present human society, the flaws and weaknesses in our carelessness. That maybe we have too much control and too little understanding of the way the world actually functions.

However I lean towards it meaning that since we wield such a strong influence we should be able to correct our mistakes fairly simply. Goldstein could mean that it is “painfully obvious” what we should do with our power instead of just stating we have too much. She calls it an “influence” which can be taken as our impact, however an influence is only the capacity to have effect and not the effect itself.

Goldstein also comments on the industrial age in the quote. From an initial reading it is fairly obvious she is speaking about the environmental impact and not any social or economic. However what people forget is that the environmental consequences can quickly bleed over into our everyday lives. Therefore from a conceptual analysis standpoint we can quickly see that the negative impacts of ocean pollution would parallel the negative impacts felt by ocean based industries as well as the consumer health of products drawn from the sea.

Resources:

Rindels, Michelle. Great Pacific Garbage Patch Swells. Associated Press. August 28, 2009. Accessed October 22, 2009 from http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/08/28/pacific-garbage.html

Humans vs. Rats

2009-10-25T10:05:00.000-07:00

In the animal kingdom there are few examples of creatures that almost always generate a collective response of revulsion from humans. Spiders, cockroaches, centipedes, these are all creatures which make almost all of us squirm and wriggle in disgust at the mere mention of them and the rat is no stranger to this list. Rats are remarkably adaptive animals, their omnivorous diet, scavenger habits and frightening reproduction rates have enabled this rodent to thrive and inhabit almost every corner of the world. Ironically, a large part of this success can be attributed directly to human settlement, specifically how we manage our garbage. In developed countries, municipal garbage collection generally operates on a weekly or biweekly pickup system, so in between garbage collections we tend to store the garbage in the garage. The allure of a free meal and shelter is almost irresistible to an opportunist like the rat, especially during the winter months when food is hard to come by.
In The year of the rat, which appeared in Maclean’s magazine the modern relationship between Canadians and rats is examined. Ken MacQueen, explores the human pursuit to control rat populations in our cities. Despite our best attempts and unrelenting persecution of this versatile species, humans have failed to eradicate rat populations altogether. In the article the author states, “Truly, it is the animal we can’t get rid of, the only one capable of challenging human hegemony of the planet.”(MacQueen 2009). What the author implies by this statement is that rats are resilient creatures, so resilient that they have survived mankind’s attempts to eradicate them. This resilience is a result of their: comparative intelligence and reproduction rates of 3-5 litters of 7-8 but up to 14 young per year (Burton 2002 p.299). But this resilience is also dangerous as rats can carry a number of viruses and bacteria which are harmful to humans such as salmonella and the hantavirus (MacQueen 2009). While this phrase is meant as more of a hyperbole statement rather than a literal statement, it highlights the potential of rats as a health risk due to their tendency to carry pathogens and the difficulty that we humans have in controlling their populations. Misunderstanding of the phrase could come from literal implications or the failure to realize that the statement is merely an exaggeration of the situation in order to make a point. While it’s reasonable to conclude that rats are not scheming to take over the world anytime soon, it would be foolish not to admire, at the very least, acknowledge the remarkable adaptive abilities of this rodent.
References
International Wildlife Encyclopedia Volume 3, Burton Maurice; Burton Robert, 2002 Marshall Cavendish, 3
The year of the rat: Mac Queen Ken: September 17 2009; Macleans. Retrieved October 23 2009 from: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/17/the-year-of-the-rat/

The Role of the Public in Precautionary Thinking

2009-10-19T22:45:00.000-07:00

The environmental group Ecojustice recently posted this news article about a proposed copper and gold mine in Northern British Columbia. The mine, according to Ecojustice, would “endanger wildlife, risk watershed contamination, and threaten the Stikine River”, mainly by way of waste from its operation.

Ecojustice contends that the public should be allowed participation in the government’s comprehensive assessment of the proposal for the mine. “We hope to safeguard Canadians’ ability to protect the environment through a comprehensive assessment process that involves public participation and applies the precautionary principle,” said a lawyer with the group.

Application of the wingspread precautionary principle in this case requires that the process be open and democratic and include any potentially affected parties. It seems, therefore, that the call for public involvement in the mine’s assessment is valid. The principle also implies that this mine should not be built unless the mining company can prove that no environmental harm would result from its existence.

Many problems arise when applying the precautionary principle. Firstly, it has been shown that people (the public) tend to be risk averse towards gain. This mine presents opportunities for gain by the public, in the form of potential jobs and in resources required by the society to which this public belongs. The mine also represents risks of potential environmental harm. By including the public in the assessment, tendency will be against the approval of the mine, regardless of the risk to benefit ratio.

Indeed, there are plausible risks of potential environmental harm from the mine. Ecojustice inaccurately concludes that this potential is one hundred percent. For example, they say definitively that the mine “would destroy part of three streams”. Regardless of this, it would be impossible to conclude without uncertainty that the mine presents zero risk or non-zero risk. The scope and cost to fully satisfy this requirement of the principle would be inconceivably large. Therefore the application of the precautionary principle in this case, as in others, is not useful.

Furthermore, the precautionary principle would also require that the public bare the burden of proof that their participation in the assessment would have no harmful affect on the environment, which again, would be impossible to conclude.

Reference:

http://www.ecojustice.ca/media-centre/press-releases/environmental-groups-take-feds-to-the-supreme-court

Benguet Residents Oppose Construction of Sanitary Landfill

2009-10-19T20:34:00.000-07:00

In Itigon, Benguet, in the Philippines, the government is trying to install a sanitary landfill in an open pit mine site in a residential area. Residents of the area have opposed the construction of the landfill because they claim that it will pose a threat to the health and safety of the residents living in Itigon, the residents of surrounding communities, as well as the environment. The article that I used to demonstrate precautionary thinking is called “Benguet Folk Reject Sanitary Landfill”, written by Dexter See in 2009.

The precautionary principle is used in this case because the residents are saying that the construction of the sanitary landfill could potentially be harmful to the environment and to the residents, so the landfill should not be built at all. This is using the strong precautionary principle as the residents are proposing that the government take no action in building the sanitary landfill since it could potentially cause harm in the future. There is no proof available that it will be bad for the environment or that it could be harmful to the residents. I understand that the residents are worried about their own safety, but I do not completely agree with the use of the precautionary principle in this case. The landfill that the government is talking about constructing is supposed to be sanitary and I think that in the long run, it will make the community cleaner. This also means that the residents will actually be safer because the air will be cleaner and the surrounding environment will be less polluted. I believe that the usage of the precautionary principle in this situation was not well thought out, as the health and safety of the environment and the residents was considered in the present but not in the future.

Reference
See, Dexter. Benguet Folk Reject Sanitary Landfill. Manila Bulletin Publishing Company. October 19, 2009. http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/225491/benguet-folk-reject-sanitary-landfill. Accessed October 19, 2009.

The New Barcode: A Potential Threat to the Recycling Industry

2009-10-19T13:00:00.000-07:00

The idea of using barcodes to keep track of large quantities of items in a store, as well as preventing shoplifting, has been replaced with a new and improved technology, radio-frequency identification tags (RFID tags). Although these tags may be beneficial in the commercial industry, the Federal Environment Agency of Germany released an article based on their study which suggested that the continuous usage of RFID tags may pose a potential threat to the recycling industry.

In the article, the agency uses precautionary thinking to strengthen the backbone of their claim. They imply that since the outcome of this action is unknown, we should act in a way that will avoid serious potential harm. They demonstrate this by giving various examples of negative obstacles that the tags may generate during the course of recycling. For instance, they state that when melting down waste glass that includes a RFID tag, the resulting material could become less shatterproof and more discoloured due to the trace amounts of aluminum and silicon that are contained in the tags (Federal Environment Agency of Germany, 2009). Furthermore, they demonstrate use of the precautionary principle by explaining that because there are hypothetical risks towards using RFID tags, usage should cease until the commercial industry takes the necessary steps in resolving the possible ecological issues.

Although an oppositional view on this argument might express that RFID tags should be used until concrete evidence of negative environmental impacts arise, the authors of this article show that the possible dilemmas in the recycling process outweigh the commercial benefit of tag usage.

By giving reasons of uncertainty concerning the system of identification tags, which leads to the precautionary principle, the agency effectively defends their idea as to why usage of these “trackers” should be put on hold until further research and solutions come into play.

Reference
Federal Environment Agency of Germany. (2009) When Tags Interfere With Recycling, 22 September 2009. http://www.packagingdigest.com/articleXml/LN1049014938.html?nid=3462. Accessed 18 Sunday October 2009.

Biofuel dilemna

2009-10-19T09:08:00.001-07:00

Many issues come to rise when the topic of fuel is raised. Most concerns revolve around how waste carbon dioxide emissions affect the climate and health of our planet. In an article released by the FAO “Reviewing biofuel policies and subsidies” reporting on their paper, “The State of Food and Agriculture 2008” the possible solutions and drawbacks of biofuel are explored. The report displays an ideal of precautionary thinking where the odds of the outcome are unknown then we should move to act in the direction that causes the least amount of harm. With biofuels this ideal can be placed on a number of different levels. They state numerous negative effects biofuel production will have on not only the world’s economy but also individual communities in general.

The article states, ”When looking at the environmental dimension, the balance is not always positive.” (Northoff 2009). They base this on the amount of reduction in the net greenhouse emissions. Here the benefits of reduced carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel use and processing are weighed against the cost of deforestation to grow the biofuel crops. I agree with their use and conclusion stemming from the precautionary principle. I believe in this case the costs out weigh the benefits, even though the full potential of biofuel as an alternative is unknown. The precautionary principle also states to move to prevent harm even though the possibility of the even happening is unknown. I believe in this case we should move to do as the article suggests and place measures where the growth and use of biofuels is closely monitored so the full benefits and least amount of negative effects can occur.

Resources:

Northoff, Erwin. Reviewing Biofuel Policies and Subsides. Food and Agriculture Organization. October 7 ,2008. Accessed October 17 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/news/story/ch/item/8223/icode/en/

Is Nanotechnology the future of waste managment or an invisble health hazard?

2009-10-18T10:04:00.000-07:00

http://e360.yale.edu.subzero.lib.uoguelph.ca/content/feature.msp?id=2029
Nanotechnology covers a branch of science in which atomic manipulation is made possible through the use of microscopic robots, electronics and materials. The applications of atomic manipulation are almost endless, some including: recycling of materials andpurification or clean up of pollution. With such a wide range of possibilities the future of nanoscience seems quite promising. Many businesses and governments are heavily investing in an effort to advance this technology. But with the rapid and unchecked development of nanotechnology many are questioning if we are getting ahead of ourselves.
In Nanotech: The unknown risks, Carole Bass cautions the safety of this rapidly expanding technology. She uses the precautionary principle to effectively construct an argument for regulation due to our lack of knowledge surrounding this technology. This topic is an appropriate application for the precautionary principle because this technology is being integrated into many consumer products and a large proportion of the population is being exposed with relatively limited knowledge of the effects and behaviour of nanoparticles. In the article she explains that while the applications for this technology are promising, not enough effort or attention is being paid to studying the risks of the technology. A number of recent studies have made potential links between nanoparticles and serious health problems in humans and certain organisms. The studies indicate that while nanoparticles are made of familiar elements like carbon and silver, on the atomic level these elements could behave quite differently and be dangerous(Bass 2009). Another problem is that nanoparticles are so small, that exposure to these substances through consumer products is virtually unavoidable. In this context the precautionary principle is appropriate and should be applied for risk assessment and policy, due to the sheer lack of knowledge of the risks to human health and the environment.

References
Bass Carole. (2008, 23 June 2008). Nanotech: The unknown risks. Message posted to http://e360.yale.edu.subzero.lib.uoguelph.ca/content/feature.msp?id=2029

Degradation of Cootes Paradise

2009-10-13T21:41:00.000-07:00

Cootes Paradise is a wetland located at the western edge of Lake Ontario, surrounded by the cities of Hamilton and Dundas. The area was once a pristine marsh where aquatic plant and wild life flourished, and remains an important spawning ground for fish. Unfortunately, this sanctuary has been altered in past decades. Where once the area was entirely covered with aquatic plants, now much of the marsh is open water. This degradation is visible to any one driving past Cootes Paradise along highway 403 and highway 6. However, the damage goes far beyond what can be seen. As a recent study found, water quality and biodiversity in the wetland has significantly declined, with adverse affects on the health of plant and animals species.

The study, led by Tatiana Mayer, was conducted by Environment Canada’s Water Science and Technology Directorate. It found that Cootes Paradise contains high levels of phosphorus and of a class of chemicals known as alkylphenolics. Aquatic systems such as lakes and marshes are negatively affected by elevated phosphorus and alkylphenolic levels. High phosphorus content can lead to eutrophication of such systems, where in the water’s oxygen content often declines, and the normal ecosystem is disrupted. Alkylphenolics have been shown to alter the sexual development of many organisms. Male species exposed to these chemicals can adapt female sexual characteristics. Both phosphorus and alkylphenolics are found in a wide range of consumer and industrial products, from detergents to cosmetics to paints.

Mayer and the study team observed these levels in core samples of surface and bottom sediment taken from Cootes Paradise in 2001 and 2002. They took several core samples from different areas around the 250 hectare marsh. Marshes are especially vulnerable to the effects of contaminants, because these toxins accumulate in the sediment where their impacts can be augmented.

Results showed that contaminant levels were highest near creeks and drainage points where discharge from municipal wastewater treatment plants (WTPs) and combined sewer overflows (CSOs) emptied into the marsh. These discharges have been shown in other studies to contain high levels of pharmaceuticals, hormones and other toxins, including alkylphenolics. The study also found that higher levels of these contaminants were deposited after heavy rainfall and rapid snow melt occurred. During these events, high levels of water run off overloads WTPs and CSOs, and water is often not properly treated or processed. As such, many of the contaminants remain in the untreated water. The study showed a distinct connection between the elevated levels of these contaminants and the decline in the marsh's biotic health.

As development and population in the Hamilton-Dundas area continue to grow, new infrastructure for managing wastewater will need to be developed, while current facilities will require upkeep. As Mayer points out, impacts like those on Cootes Paradise are similarly affecting other wetlands in areas around the Great Lakes. It is in these areas that urban development is slated to grow the fastest. Considering the results of this study, it’s clear that the impacts of this wastewater on Cootes Paradise and Great Lakes wetlands should be considered, and ultimately minimized by urban developers in future infrastructure.

Reference:

http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.subzero.lib.uoguelph.ca/details.xqy?uri=/03801330/v34i0003/544_docfmdlcwcpo.xml

Treating Leachates from Landfills with Biofilm Processes

2009-10-13T20:19:00.000-07:00

A large cause of pollution is from landfills leaching into the soil, groundwater, and surface water. Many landfills that are not managed properly and even ones that are can produce leachate which is polluted wastewater. This wastewater is toxic and can contain hazardous components such as heavy metals. The leachate from landfills causes surface water, groundwater and soil pollution. A study performed by A. Gálvez, L. Giusti, et al. in association with the University of Granada, Spain and the University of the West of England, UK, demonstrated some new ways to control this toxic leachate in order to make landfills cleaner and safer on the environment. The study is called “Stability and efficiency of biofilms for landfill leachate treatment” and it was published in the journal “Bioresource Technology” in 2009.

The purpose of this study was to determine how efficient biological aeration filtrate is for the treatment of leachate. The study concentrated on leachate produced at the Harnfill landfill site in the UK. The study looked at how the leachate from landfills can be treated by a biofilm process. A biofilm is a thin resistant layer of organisms (bacteria) that stick together and form on surfaces. The biofilms are supposed to have a higher resistance to toxic agents and a lower sensitivity to low temperatures, and the study was trying to prove whether this was true or not.

Leachate samples were collected from the Harnfill landfill site and they were brought back to a laboratory for analysis. The leachate samples were put in four identical biological aerated filters and they were tested for biofilm that was forming on them. Some tests were done on the columns to determine what the biofilms could withstand. Some of these tests included testing for the pH, conductivity and heavy metal levels. The columns were also tested under several different temperatures and these included 20⁰C, 30⁰C, 40⁰C, and 45⁰C. The results of the study showed that the biofilm had a high resistance to antibiotic and other toxic agents and it was very adaptable to a wide range of conditions.

The biological aerated filters were found to produce biofilms which reduce the toxins of the leachate. This therefore makes the landfills less harmful for the environment and safer for the people that live near the landfills. Because of the tests done with different temperatures, the biological aerated filters are now known to operate efficiently in temperatures between 20 ⁰C and 45⁰C without showing toxic effects. The study performed by A. Gálvez, L. Giusti, et al proved that using biological aerated filters to remove biodegradable parts of organic matter contained in leachate was a very feasible, cost efficient and environmentally friendly process. As said in the study, “This demonstrates the flexibility of the biofilm process as it is able to treat leachates of different origin and composition.” (Gálvez et al. 2009). This discovery is very important because it will mean that landfills can continue to function without being harmful to the environment and to the society.

Resources
Gálvez, A., Giusti L. et al. Stability and efficiency of biofilms for landfill leachate treatment (2009). Bioresource Technology. 3 June 2009. http://journals1.scholarsportal.info/tmp/2868637342054989626.pdf. Accessed 13 October 2009.

Singapore Waste Solutions

2009-10-13T10:35:00.000-07:00

The issue of domestic waste management has always been controversial; yet we don’t give much thought to the garbage we throw away. Most of us have at least a baseline idea of what happens to it afterwards but very few people actually care. Landfills are by far the most popular and the cheapest supposed solution. Dumping garbage into its own reserved area where many will never have to see it again is a very appealing idea. There are of course a number of more environmentally friendly options, but not every country can afford them. This is a common dilemma, balancing environmental impacts with the costs of the overall process of disposing of waste. A study done in January 2009 by the Institute of Chemical and Engineering Sciences analyzed Singapore’s methods of dealing with municipal solid waste.

Singapore is a small country, lacking the land for extensive landfills. Its one main landfill is predicted to last until 2030 . They have turned to a number of processes to handle their waste problems, most of which revolve around incinerating MSW (Municipal Solid Waste). They have also begun trying to harness some of the product gas produced as usable electrical energy. Of Singapore’s eight main waste managing methods it was determined that the steam gasification of wood and pyrolysis gasification of waste was the most effective. Gasification consists of shredding waste wood to produce a product gas, then combusting the gas to create electrical energy, making it the most environmentally friendly yet at the same time the most costly. Pyrolysis gasification of waste created the least amount of waste. However all methods of incineration cost a considerable deal, first to heat the waste and second to pretreat and deal with the product.

The study determined that the costs of these methods in comparison to land filling were almost double. For example the gasification of shredded wood was roughly 95 USD/ton feedstock, while land filling was 55 USD/ton feedstock. A number them had high global warming potential, thermal cracking gasification scored highest, with the addition of pretreatment for the waste amounted to almost 2700 kg_Co2 – eq. The study tested a number of different impacts including eutrophication levels and photochemical ozone formation levels. Gasification and pyrolysis was the second most expensive, yet it’s estimated that the trade off of energy produced by the product waste could make it more affordable and beneficial for the environment. Hopefully more alternative methods of waste management will be considered more internationally, improvements in technology should make the transition simpler. However there is a long way to go before we can manage waste in an environmentally sustainable way that is also cost effective, thought the near future holds many possibilities.

Resources:

Life cycle impact assessment of carious waste conversion technologies. Khoo H. Hsien. January 20, 2009. Waste Management V. 29 I. 6. Accessed October 9, 2009. From: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VFR-4VDSCVJ-8&_user=1067211&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2009&_alid=1046587035&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=6017&_sort=r&_st=4&_docanchor=&_ct=48&_acct=C000051237&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1067211&md5=cee5e4a2470c102220e1cd856bc564be.

Human Hair: An Indicator of Contaminant Exposures in E-waste Recycling Areas

2009-10-12T10:28:00.000-07:00

Due to the increase in demand and production for electronic products in the past decades, many problems become apparent regarding the whereabouts of the ever rising amount of electronic waste (e-waste). A growing supply of this waste is illegally exported to recycling facilities in developing countries in order to salvage reusable materials and traces of precious metals. In these foreign facilities, open burning and acid stripping practises take place, but along with recovering the prize comes the release of pollutants and toxic heavy metals. Not only do these contaminants cause health problems for the site workers, they also negatively affect the surrounding environment, including fields, rivers, soils, and sediments (Wang et al., 2009).

A recent study on human exposure to heavy metals in an electronic waste recycling area, published in Bioresource Technology during 2009, suggests that scalp hair can be used as an indicator on the exposure of heavy metals and toxic elements to humans. The six researchers, Thanh Wang, Jianjie Fu, Yawei Wang, Chunyang Liao, Yongqing Tao, and Guibin Jiang, believe that since studies on the potential exposures (both occupationally and environmentally) due to e-waste recycling activities are inadequate, it is important to be able to examine these residential exposures using the least invasive and hazardous, but most convenient techniques. They proposed that human hair scalp could be used to assess the amounts of e-waste contaminants that are exposed and state that their study is one of the very few that deals with “human exposure to trace elements and heavy metals associated in areas with e-waste recycling” (Wang et al., 2009).

The study was purposefully chosen to take place in the south eastern Chinese province Taizhou, where residents have been directly or indirectly involved with a local e-waste recycling site that has been in existence for almost two decades. Hair samples, which were collected from volunteer participants during their routine sessions at nearby barber shops, were analyzed using the external standard calibration method to detect total concentrations of arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, manganese, nickel, lead, and, vanadium (Wang et al., 2009). These samples were then compared with samples from two cities located about 130km north and 160km northwest of Taizhou.

The results showed that all of the mentioned elements above were found at higher levels than those in the controlled areas except for arsenic and vanadium. The researchers also stated that compared to non-occupationally exposed populations in Sweden and France, the element levels were all greater, especially lead, which proved to show 80 times higher levels (Wang et al., 2009).

From these results, Wang and his co-researchers concluded that human scalp hair can be used to determine the exposure of toxic heavy elements and metals to residential and occupational personnel directly or indirectly involved with e-waste recycling areas. It provides a non-invasive and cost-effective method, and is beneficial because by knowing the levels of exposure, scientists can further their knowledge on the negative effects of unregulated recycling practises such as open burning and acid stripping.

Reference
Wang, T. et al. (2009) Use of scalp hair as indicator of human exposure to heavy metals in an electronic waste recycling area. Environmental Pollution, issue 157, March 2009. http://journals2.scholarsportal.info/tmp/12866323311903835193.pdf. Accessed 08 October 2009.

Chasing Nature

2009-10-12T09:26:00.000-07:00

If someone were to ask you, ”What do helicopters, hypodermic needles, airplane wings and sonar have in common?”, do you think you could come up with the answer? At first glance the answer may not seem clear, but upon closer inspection a hidden similarity emerges. While all of these items do represent enormous leaps in human technological advancement, the design behind them is by no means original. Millions of years before the notion of these technologies were even conceived, dragonflies and hummingbirds hovered in midflight, vipers injected venom through hollow fangs into unsuspecting prey and dolphins used echolocation to locate fish. In fact a vast majority of modern technology is directly copied from designs in nature. Despite our best attempts, these imitations always pale in comparison to the real thing. It is really not much of a surprise then, when technology fails to match the most complex biological processes which, in themselves took millions of years to develop through evolution
One of the most complex and intricate of these systems is the digestive tract, specifically that found in ruminants. Since the emergence of grass as a dominant plant species, ruminants have continued to be the dominant group of herbivores. The secret of this success lies in the unique digestive system of this group of animals. Cellulose, is one of the main components of grass and plant cell walls, and since it is primarily comprised of carbohydrates, it has a lot of stored potential energy. The trouble is that cellulose is very difficult to digest and as a result all of that stored energy is virtually unattainable. Ruminants however, have evolved a highly complex digestive system which can digest tough cellulose so that energy may be extracted. Recently, humans have also recognized the enormous energy potential of cellulosic plant biomass specifically in the production of ethanol. Ethanol has many industrial applications, but its primary use is as a fuel additive. When ethanol is added to fuel, the amount of hydrocarbon and volatile organic emissions decreases. Up until recently, corn has been the primary source of ethanol. Unfortunately, corn alone cannot supply the necessary amount of ethanol required for a worldwide demand. Consolidated bioprocessing(CBP) of biomass is a process which utilizes anaerobic bacteria to decompose and ferment cellulose plant biomass into ethanol. Currently, CBP systems still require many improvements before the process can become a viable ethanol production source. Researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the USDA-ARS-US Dairy Forage Research Center have set out to observe the digestive system of the cow, which has a very efficient cellulose digestive system, in order to determine how CBP systems can be improved. After observation, 3 main areas of improvement were identified:
1. Pre-treatment of the cellulose fibre
2. Anaerobic bacteria
3. Usage of by-products as possible alternate energy sources

Even for the species of bacteria which can produce cellulase, cellulose must first be pre treated in order to weaken the tough protein lignin found in the cell walls of plantcells. In CBP this is achieved chemically, however, the systems and the chemical agents all require significant costs. In addition, chemical pre treatment also results in the loss of some carbohydrate from the mixture as well as waste which requires disposal. The system in cows is much more primitive, yet more effective. By physically grinding the plant material, and then re-chewing the regurgitated cud, cows are able to reduce the particle size so much that there is an estimated 104 fold increase in total surface area(Weimer 2009). However, in order to thoroughly breakdown the cellulose cows were found to chew for 200 min/kg of fibre intake which adds up to 10-13 hours of ruminating per day or as high as 20 hours per day(Weimer 2009)! Remarkably the energy expended in ruminating is actually quite small. But currently there is no mechanical system which matches the efficiency of the cow in grinding plant biomass, so efforts are continuing to be focused on a chemical pre treatment. However, this research may provide the information which could be used in the future to create a more efficient grinding system which closely mimics the cow.
The process of cellulose hydrolysis is made possible by enzymes produced by anaerobic bacteria. In cows these vital bacteria are located in a large organ called the rumen where the chewed plant fibre can remain for up to 72 hours(Weimer 2009). This gives the bacteria in the rumen plenty of time to properly digest the treated plant matter. In the low-no oxygen conditions, fermentation occurs and the main products are volatile fatty acids(VFA), which the cow absorbs through its gut wall(Weimer 2009). The cellulose is degraded faster depending on the available surface area. Plant cell walls are composed of many different components and yet almost every single type of enzyme required to digest the material can be produced by at least one of the bacterial species found in the rumen. In contrast, artificial systems lack this diversity of microflora, and cannot digest plant matter as thoroughly as ruminants.
Perhaps the most important focus of this study was the examination of utilizing the fermentation by products other than ethanol as alternative energy sources. Two of the major by products produced by the fermentation process are methane and VFAs. Methane, which is excreted as gas by ruminants, could be captured in CBP systems and used as an alternate fuel source. VFAs on the other hand have a low volatility, but have a large amount of stored energy therefore have a potential as another energy source. Most systems currently focus on primarily ethanol production however, the addition of these by products could contribute enormously to the biomass energy yield.
Improvements on current CBP systems need to be made before this process becomes a viable source of ethanol. Current research provides a valuable insight regarding the direction to advance this technology. Equally important, the effort towards developing this technology also presents alternatives for waste management. For industries where high cellulose biomass is produced as waste such as agriculture, forestry or even maintenance of green spaces the advancement of CBP systems represents a potentially effective and even beneficial waste management strategy other than composting.

References
Weimer J. Paul, Russell B. James, & Muck E. Richard. (2009). Lessons from the cow: What the ruminant animal can teach us about consolidated bioprocessing of cellulosic biomass. [Lessons from the cow: What the ruminant animal can teach us about consolidated bioprocessing of cellulosic biomass] Bioresource Technology, 100(21), 5323-5331.

Reusable vs. Disposable Cups

2009-10-05T23:45:00.000-07:00

In his blog post entitled Reusable vs. Disposable Cups: Saving Money and Energy (July, 2009, http://greenresearch.com/2009/07/16/reusable-vs-disposable-cups-saving-money-and-energy), author David Schatsky discusses the environmental impacts of disposable cups (paper, plastic, polystyrene foam) versus reusable cups (glass, ceramic, higher grade reusable plastic). Schatsky focuses on the impact related to the energy involved in each type of cup. His blog post derives most of its information from one particular study. The study Schatsky cites is entitled Reusable and Disposable Cups: An Energy-Based Evaluation. It was performed by Martin B. Hocking, a chemist at the University of Victoria, and was published in the journal Environmental Management, Vol. 18, No. 6.

From findings in the study, Schatsky highlights many of the energy break-even ratios of the different cup types. For example, polystyrene foam cups require relatively little energy to manufacture, where as ceramic cups require much energy. Therefore, a ceramic cup needs to be reused many times before its energy requirement balances with the energy required to manufacture that number of singly-used foam cups. In this case, the break-even point is 1006 uses (Schatsky, 2009).

Hocking’s study uses a thorough set of equations for determining the total energy involved in all aspect of each cup’s life. These include extracting and processing the raw materials, manufacturing the cups, and washing the reusable varieties. The energy expenditure of each cup type is expressed as a value of kilojoules per gram. It is from these values, along with variables such as the number of uses before washing or disposing, that Hocking arrives at his break-even ratios. These ratios compose the majority of results from the study.

Schatsky accurately summarizes results from the study using data, without making any particularly strong claims that aren’t supported by such data. However, when discussing energy requirements for paper cups, he does use language that is overly strong and subjective. He twice refers to paper as being “an energy hog”. This description goes beyond the data provided in Hocking’s study, and stands out as very opinionated, in an article that is generally results-based.

Hocking performed a number of sensitivity tests in his study, calculating how changes in certain variables affect the break-even ratios. Schatsky does discuss these tests and their results in his article. For example, he notes that if energy in the washing process is reduced by 50%, the breakeven for reusable plastic versus polystyrene falls to 59 versus the 450 from standard energy requirements (Schatsky, 2009). Schatsky goes even further to note that energy efficiency in dish washing has improved since publication of the study, thus highlighting how this limiting variable would affect results if more current data were used to calculate washing energy.

There is one particular limiting factor in Hocking’s study, though, which Schatsky does not discuss in his article. Hocking’s method for determining energy requirements for the manufacture of disposable cups requires that this energy value be compared to the equivalent amount of electricity for washing reusable cups. Such a comparison requires values for the efficiency of electricity production in the area where the manufacturing and washing are done. Efficiency values vary from country to country. For example, Canada has an average electrical generating efficiency of 57.3%, compared to the US at 38% (Hocking, 1994). Values from other countries range from 33.0% to 99.6%. However, Hocking uses the efficiency value from Canada when calculating all energy requirements. Therefore, the actual requirements would vary depending on the country where the manufacture and washing occur.

References:

Schartsky, David, Reusable vs. Disposable Cups: Saving Money and Energy, 2009, http://greenresearch.com/2009/07/16/reusable-vs-disposable-cups-saving-money-and-energy.

Hocking, Martin, Reusable and Disposable Cups: An Energy-Based Evaluation, 1994, Environmental Management, Vol. 18, No. 6.

Sewage Leaching Into Oceans in Florida

2009-10-05T20:44:00.000-07:00

When landfills and cess pits are located too close to any kind of body of water, many problems can arise. The fecal matter from the sewages and cess pits often leach into the soil, and if controlled properly, they do not pose much of a threat to the health of humans and aquatic organisms. However, in many cases, these sewage systems are not properly managed and controlled, and as the fecal matter leaches into the soil, it can get into ground water which evidently ends up in larger bodies of water. It is not the fecal matter itself which can be harmful, but the viruses and bacteria that inhabit the fecal matter. A category of viruses called enteric viruses are viruses that live in the intestinal tract (and therefore are plentiful in human waste) and they can cause infections and diseases in humans and other organisms. In a study performed by Erin Lipp, and doctoral student Carrie Futch from the University of Georgia, along with Dale Griffin of the U.S. Geological Survey in Tallahassee, coral reefs and water columns near Florida Keys was tested for the presence of these enteric viruses. The study is called “Analysis of multiple enteric viral targets as sewage markers in coral reefs” and it was performed during the years 2001, 2002, and 2003.

The secondary source that I found was an article from the Innovations Report entitled “Study finds contaminated water reaching Florida’s offshore keys” written by Sam Fahmy, which was reporting on the findings of the study authored by Lipp. There were many similarities between the secondary article and the primary journal article, but there were also a few things that I found that were reported differently in the secondary article. For one, the actual study is much more detailed in the explanation of the method they used to extract the enteric viruses from the samples and they explain their data a lot more thoroughly in the primary article. The secondary article did not give any real data at all, but just talked about the results and the conclusion taken from the study.

The study performed by the University of Georgia collected coral mucus and water samples and tested for enteric viruses present in those samples. They collected 100 coral and water samples throughout the Florida Keys national Marine Sanctuary and the Dry Tortugas and the study went on for three years. The article in which the results were reported also states that the study went on for three years, but the article did not mention how many samples were collected. It did say however that the samples were collected in five different sites. In the actual study, genetic material was extracted from the enteric viruses and was tested for to see whether they caused diseases in humans and it was found that they do. The secondary article reported this correctly as they stated that “Genetic material from enteric viruses, which cause disease in humans but are only found in infected human feces and urine, also were commonly found throughout the sampled area...” (Fahmy 2007).

A difference that I found between the two articles was that the secondary article described that common fecal indicator bacteria were analyzed, and these indicator fecal bacteria showed how much of the waste matter from the sewages and cess pits were leaking into the ground water. However this is a major difference from what the primary journal article reported, as they said that they analyzed for enteric viruses instead of indicator fecal bacteria because the enteric viruses show more clearly whether the reefs and the water have been contaminated than the indicator bacteria and viruses do. The study states that, “These viral based approaches have demonstrated susceptibility of near shore, offshore and outlying reefs to wastewater contamination when the traditional fecal indicator bacteria levels suggested ‘no evidence of contamination’” (Lipp 2007).

The original article also stated some restrictions that the secondary article failed to mention. The secondary source made it seem as though the study was now fully complete and the treatment was the only thing left to do, but the original article talked about how additional work would need to be done in order for the study to be truly complete. The next part of the study would be to determine whether another type of virus called adenovirus could be used as a marker of human sewage as well, but this cannot be done as of right now. The primary article claims that because RNA and DNA-based viruses are different enough, we cannot tell if adenovirus can be used as a marker. This is a limitation that the secondary article did not mention.

The primary and the secondary articles both stated the same conclusion, and that was that there were more enteric viruses found closer to shore and in areas where the populations were larger. This makes sense, since there are more people in the highly populated places and therefore more fecal matter that is leaching into the ground water and contaminating the coral reefs and the water. Also, both articles say that there were more enteric viruses found in the surface layers of the coral mucus than in the water columns which were also sampled. The original study discusses this in more detail however and they state that because the viruses are trapped in the coral mucus, they are protected from UV degradation and therefore are more plentiful than they are in the water columns. Although there were a few differences between the two sources, I believe that the secondary journal article had enough similarities to the primary study, that it is a fair representation of the study that was performed.

References

Fahmy, S. (2007) Study finds contaminated water reaching florida’s offshore keys. Innovations Report, 26 july 2007. http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/environment_sciences/report-87937.html. Accessed October 5, 2009.

Lipp, E., Futch, J., Griffin, D. (2007) Analysis of multiple enteric viral targets as sewage markers in coral reefs. Marine Pollution Bulletin. http://journals2.scholarsportal.info/tmp/9215686711381326070.pdf. Accessed October 5, 2009

American E-waste in Peru

2009-10-05T15:33:00.000-07:00

It is hard to deny that western society’s dependence on new and improved personal computers (PCs) is significantly high, but when considering this statement, one simple question comes to mind. Where do all the old computers go? As time and technology evolves, computer lifespan is actually decreasing, creating more electronic waste (e-waste) than there is room for. The United States have come up with their own solution on how to manage this “junk”; Peru. By exporting their e-waste to the developing South American country, the states easily resolve environmental issues concerned with recycling these unwanted PCs, the majority of these issues being the release of toxic emissions.

Although the problem does not technically belong to the US anymore, researchers continue to question exactly how many of these exported PCs are reused in Peru. They also show concern as to whether the Peruvian government keeps track of the number of computers imported, and where these imports actually end up. In June 2009, Ramzy Kahhat and Eric Williams published a study entitled “Product or Waste? Importation and End-of-Life Processing of Computers in Peru”, which gave answers, including evidence, to these mentioned questions.

The study, which was published in the Environmental Science and Technology journal, is considered the most comprehensive inquiry of computer reuse in a developing country (Betts, 2009). It determined from Peruvian records that 57-76% of the computers imported during the years 2003 to 2007 were directly from the United States (Betts, 2009). It also revealed that at least 85% of unwanted PCs imported to Peru are reused, instead of being directly recycled (Betts 2009). This evidence, along with other, ultimately suggested that the idea that e-waste is exported to Peru mainly to dump unusable junk is inaccurate (Betts, 2009).

In contrast to this inquiry, where researchers provide an in depth look at imports of American PCs in Peru, there is also an article entitled “E-waste reuse may be more persuasive than previously thought” which refers to and summarizes the key objectives, ideas, and conclusions behind the study. The article, which was written by Kellyn Betts in 2009, contains several of the same pieces of information as the original study does, but in a varying manner. The main differences noted between the two sources are the amount of detail given about how the study was conducted, the tables, graphs, and diagrams used to solidify the claim, and the magnitude at which the limitations were discussed.

First of all, the differences with regards to the details of the study can be seen in the introductions. Kahhat and Williams initially begin their paper with a paragraph on what their study entails and describe how they analysed government data to eventually reach their conclusion. They also give mention to background information that was taken into consideration. They then proceed with an elaborate introduction which firstly explains definitions and continues on to identify the three main questions behind the study. Whereas on the other hand, Betts begins her article with a concise description of the study, an outline of the results that were determined, and a brief biography of the lead author and his associate. As well as having a more detailed introduction, the original study also includes materials and methods that were used as well as relevant information such as the computer recycling system in Lima (the capital of Peru). Betts’ article lacks in this area because the primary purpose of her piece is to inform the general public of the study that was made. This alludes to the idea that for the readers to understand the basic logistics of the experiment, only a summary of the observations and findings are necessary.

Not only does Kahhat and William’s work have more detail in their words, but they also give figures that visually demonstrate the data they observed and analysed throughout the study. For example, they include a graph depicting the importation of used and new non-mobile and mobile personal computers to Peru, as well as a table projecting the main paths followed by computer parts and materials. In Betts’ article, there are no examples of concrete data that are used as evidence. This leads to the idea that the primary source has a stronger claim since the authors gave actual proof, which in return creates more solid arguments to back up their conclusion. When reading the secondary source, the audience must trust that the information they are given is credible and that it is indeed coming from a reliable primary source.

Lastly, in the original article, there is an entire section devoted to a discussion of the limitations that were involved. In this fragment, the author states:

“There could be illegal trade, however, the extent and character of which are as yet unknown. The nature of the used computer trade in other countries such as China and India is also still uncertain. We have shown how to use official trade statistics, when available, to characterize if trade is reuse versus recycling oriented. More work is needed both to learn from official statistics from other countries as well as find new ways to characterize legal trade.” (Kahhat, Williams, 2009)

This quote implies that the researchers have acknowledged the limits of their conclusion, while stating an improvement that is necessary to guarantee their findings. This limit is also mentioned in the secondary source when Betts quotes that the researchers feel that their paper provides “compelling evidence that much of the used computer exports to Peru is driven by reuse, we don’t know if this is the case for other countries – the situation could be different” (Kahhat, Williams, 2009). Although Betts recognizes this limit, she only briefly summarizes it, as oppose to explaining it to the same extent as it was originally in the primary source.

Both sources are relevant to the needs and interests of their target audiences. The study conducted by Kahhat and Williams provides an in depth explanation and analysis of how and why they concluded that the assumed image of the United State’s exportation of unwanted PCs is incorrect. The researchers used detailed descriptions, concrete data to strengthen their claim, and a discussion of limitations to educate their specific readers on their study, where as Betts used informative summarizing techniques to give an overview of the study to her intended readers.

References
Betts, K. (2009) E-waste reuse may be more pervasive than previously thought. Environmental Science & Technology, volume 43, No. 18, 29 July 2009. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/es902021q. Accessed 4 Sunday Sept 2009.

Kahhat R., Williams, K. (2009) Product or Waste? Importation and End-of-Life Processing of Computers in Peru. Environmental Science & Technology, volume 43, No. 15, 2 June 2009. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es8035835. Accessed 4 Sunday Sept 2009.

Carbon dioxide deep sea storage

2009-10-04T20:24:00.001-07:00

The issue of managing increasing levels of carbon dioxide waste is a hot topic nowadays. Many solutions have been proposed, one of the foremost is to store liquid carbon dioxide gas in deposits under the ocean floor. I found two sources of information on the topic, one primary and the other secondary. The primary source entails the proposition, “Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Deep-Sea Basalt” by David S. Goldberg, Taro Takahashi and Angela L. Sagle. They’re findings were reported in the Seattle Times, “Storing Carbon Dioxide Under NW Seafloor Proposed” by Sandi Doughton.

There are a number of differences between the two sources, the most prominent of which involves the amount of information being displayed. A large number of factors could play into this, for example a newspaper is only allocated a certain amount of room, while the published work of researchers would need the small details and statistics to prove their arguments thoroughly.

The article, “Storing Carbon Dioxide under NW Seafloor Proposed” by Doughton also lacks an argument. Doughtan actually seems reluctant to make a concrete statement on the topic, “scientists say a partial solution to global warming,” (Doughton 2008) The author is careful not to be overly optimistic, “Researchers envision a system” (Doughton 2008), I admire how the author simply reports and does not offer an opinion allowing the reader to make their own informed opinion.

Goldberg et al. however are more dynamic in they’re arguments. Unlike the newspaper article they aim to advertise and gain support for their research. They thoroughly back all claims with a number of statistics, “geological storage of industrial CO₂ emissions can contribute significantly to achieving a stable solution,” (Goldberg et al. 2008) They also cite a number of different researchers to support their claim, “Matter et al. (25) conducted a small-scale injection experiment,” (Goldberg et al. 2008). They include diagrams on how the process would run as well as.

The newspaper article lacks all the statistics that the primary source provides, “Bulk permeability estimates in the shallow basement range from 10⁻⁹ to 10⁻¹³ m²” (Goldberg et al 2008). Instead it focuses more on informing a regular audience, and a long winded detailed account would not sell as many copies as a concise article that tells the reader what they want to know in a few paragraphs. The first paragraph itself summarizes easily what the rest is about, “Deep volcanic rocks could serve as a kind of storage locker for carbon dioxide, trapping the greenhouse gas under great pressure with virtually no chance of leaking back into the atmosphere,” (Doughton 2008). This format allows the reader to stop any time without having to search the rest of the article for key points. Newspaper articles are also designed in a way that can easily be edited to fit what ever space has been given, i.e. if an article has to be cut short it can be done with the deletion of a few paragraphs instead of a complete revision.

I believe that the general public simply has no time to sit and read every research publication that is out there. A newspaper can neatly sum up the information in a way the reader can easily decipher. However I only find that some articles contain a large bias and argument on the topic, to find an article without bias is harder, yet easier for the readers to judge information for themselves. The paper by Goldberg et al. also tries somewhat to appeal to the general public; they do this by adding diagrams and pictures

Resources:

Doughton, Sandi. (2008) Storing Carbon Dioxide Under NW Seafloor Proposed. Seattle Times. July 14 2008. Accessed October 1, 2008 from: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008050976_webcarbonstorage14m.html

Goldberg, David S. et al. (2008) Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Deep-Sea Basalt. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. May 7, 2008. Accessed October 1, 2009 from : http://www.pnas.org/content/105/29/9920.full?sid=688f33eb-ce02-4893-8816-7ee1b03c43b7se

Avian Flu in Landfills?

2009-10-04T09:33:00.000-07:00

Nature can be seen as a complex system of checks and balance and it is the biotic factors of life such as lack of food or predation that keep populations in check in order to ensure that this delicate balance is met. Humans have long tried to defy this fact of nature by building immense civilizations where food is plentiful and predators are no longer an issue, but despite our best attempts we cannot escape the ever present threat of disease. Throughout the history of human civilization, humans have been plagued by disease. In Europe during the Middle Ages it was the bubonic plague,with other notable examples such as The Spanish Flu of 1918and the cholera outbreaks during the 19th century. Even the briefest look through history reveals a disturbing trend of pestilence and fear. Ironically, the success of these plagues can be directly attributed to conditions that arose out of living in densely populated settlements, the biggest of which is poor sanitation. In the 21st century it seems we have learned from the past, and as a result we have much improved sanitation practises, but the modern day epidemics are arising from a very different source; agriculture. With the advent of the industrial revolution convenience and efficiency has dominated the way in which livestock and poultry farms are operated. With thousands of animals being crowded into cramped spaces and being fed growth hormones the farms of today resemble factories more than farms. With all these immunocompromised animals being cramped together in small confined spaces it’s really not much of a surprise that in these conditions it only takes one animal to get sick to start an epidemic. Avian influenza virus and the more recent H1N1 are the two pandemic potentials that continue to dominate the headlines.
To date hundreds of millions of birds have been killed by the Avian influenza virus or as a result of efforts to contain the virus (Bartelt-Hunt 2009). One of the issues that arise from this containment method is the disposal of a large number of carcasses. Currently, there are a number of different disposal methods that exist, but the three that are most recommended/economical for farmers are; on site burial, compositing or off site burial (landfills)(Bartelt –Hunt 2009). For disposal of large die-offs, off site burial at municipal solid waste landfills are a convenient option due to accessibility and capacity. However, a new study has revealed that even after disposal the virus can remain active in the dead host for up to two years. The study which was conducted by Bartelt-Hunt and colleagues from the University of Nebraska and was published in Environmental Science & Technology on April 30 2009. This study was unique in that it was the first one which set out to determine how long AIV remained infectious in leachate from landfills. The study compared how long AIV remained active in leachate versus water based on altering temperature, pH and conductivity (heavy metals). The results of the experiment showed that AIV had the potential to persist for up to two years at a low temperatures (4oC) and a neutral pH in both water and leachate. But, in leachate with non ideal conditions the AIV virus became inactive at either the same or two times faster than in water. This study was referred to in an article entitled Bird flu Survives in Landfills by Emily Sohn in Discovery News. The main differences between the two sources are:
1. Details of the study
2. Strength of claims
3. Extent of discussion of limitations
4. Language used/target audience
In the primary journal article all the details pertaining to the study such as materials, methods and raw experimental data are provided. Since the source is primary the extent of detail regarding the study needs to be provided in order for credibility of the experiment to be verified. However in the secondary source, some details regarding the basics of the experiment are provided but not to the extent provided in the primary source. One of the crucial reasons for the contrast in detail provided is also related to the differences in target audiences. The primary source article is indented for peers and other researchers as demonstrated by the language used and the extent of the detail. The secondary source is a news article that is directed at the public, as a result the language is much simpler and extensive detail of the study is omitted purely for the reason of making the article more comprehendible to individuals who do not have a research background. Another key difference is the strength of the claims made by both sources. In the primary article data was provided and conclusions were qualified based on the results. In contrast, the secondary source quoted the conclusions as fact without highlighting any uncertainty.
“AIV inactivation rates calculated in this study yield theoretical persistence times ranging from approximately 30 to >600 days (based on initial titer of 105 tissue culture infection dose50 (TCID50)). This indicates that AIV could remain infectious both during and after waste placement”(Bartelt-Hunt 2009).
The study also mentions that the AIV became inactive at the same or at a rate 2 times faster than that in water. In contrast the secondary article makes much more direct claims from the results of the study, the key difference again in the wording.
“After 60 days, the researchers were able to estimate how long the virus would remain infectious based on how quickly it was breaking down. At colder temperatures and neutral pH levels, the researchers reported in Environmental Science & Technology, the virus was likely to survive the longest -- sometimes for up to nearly two years. (Sohn 2009)”
Although no data is provided the same conclusion is made, but with more certainty. In addition the article does not mention the differing rates of inactivation between the leachate and water. Another key difference is the extent of the detail pertaining specifically to the limitations of the study.
In the primary source multiple acknowledgments are made regarding the limitations of the study such as, the exclusion of solid waste or microbials from the leachate and how that impacts virus survival. In contrast, in the secondary source the extent of the discussion of limitations is very simple. The article quotes David Stalknecht an epidemiologist who simply states “The lab experiment was a simplified version of what happens inside landfills, he said. In the real world, plenty of factors are likely to deactivate viruses more quickly”. (Sohn 2009)
The main reason for these differences is the target audiences: The primary source is intended for researchers and this is reflected in the language and extent of detail regarding the study. The secondary source is intended as a news article for the general public, therefore the language is much simpler and only final results of the study are included without any discussion of the study limitations.

References
Bartelt-Hunt, S.(2009) Survival of the Avian Influenza Virus (H6N2) After Land Disposal. Enviroment Science & Technology,43: 4063-4067. 30 April 2009. Retrieved October 1 2009 from, http://pubs.acs.org.subzero.lib.uoguelph.ca/doi/full/10.1021/es900370x
Sohn, E. (2009) Bird Flu Survives in Landfills. Discovery News, June 9 2009. Retrieved October 1 2009 from http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/06/09/bird-flu-landfills.html

Plastic Bags a Major Problem for Marine Wildlife Critic

2009-09-28T10:45:00.000-07:00

In an article entitled “Plastic bags a Major Problem for Marine Wildlife” written by Lori Brown (16 April 2009), the idea of plastic bags harming marine wildlife is explored. The University of Dalhousie performed some research looking at the contents of the stomachs of leatherback turtles, and they found that there were traces of plastic found in more than one-third of the animals that they looked at. In this article, Brown makes a claim that plastic and debris that is not properly disposed of is harming wildlife. She quotes the United Nations Environment Programme, and they state that “Marine litter is one of the most pervasive and solvable pollution problems plaguing the world’s oceans and waterways.” Brown seems to believe in this statement, and she concludes that “a simple solution to the plastic bag issue is, of course, reusable shopping bags”. Although I believe that the claim Brown is making is true, she does not have very many good arguments and evidence to back up her claim.

Brown explains that plastic and other waste products were found in the stomachs of leatherback turtles but she fails to explain the details of this study, leaving the readers wondering where the study was performed, making it unknown where the problem of the litter resides. Brown also does not use any statistics, numbers, or data when she talks about what was found to be harming the marine wildlife, and this makes her claim seem less credible. If the reader does not have hard evidence and facts staring them in the face, they cannot see how much of a problem the management of the plastic waste and waste generated from humans really is. Brown does talk about a report that was recently released from the Ocean Conservancy report,” A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris and What We Can Do About It”, who says that “plastic bags accounted for 12 percent of all marine debris collected during their 23rd annual Coastal Cleanup”. However with this being the only number given, the readers do not know what kind of debris accounted for the rest of the 100 percent found on the Coast, and we are uncertain of how big of a problem plastic debris really is.

Brown gives us advice of what we should be doing to diminish the plastic waste that we are producing, but the only advice she gives us is that we should be using reusable bags instead of plastic bags. Brown mainly talks about the harmful effects of plastic bags on the environment in her article, but she also mentions balloon fragments, fishing lines, candy wrappers, and spoons being found in the stomachs of the turtles that were tested. Because she mentions these others kinds of waste, I believe that she should talk about them a little more and outline some steps of things we should be doing to diminish the harmful effects of these objects too.
The claim that Brown is making is not backed up with very much hard evidence and facts, making it seem less credible to the readers. The issue she talks about is an important one and a very real one to our society, but because she gives no real data to support her ideas and opinions, the impact of what she is saying may be lost on the readers.

References
Brown, L. (2009) Plastic Bags a Major Problem for Marine Wildlife. Live Science, 16 April 2009. http://www.livescience.com/animals/090416-plastic-bags.html. Accessed 27 Sept 2009.

Money: The Real Idea Behind Recycling?

2009-09-28T09:25:00.000-07:00

http://www.helium.com/items/912196-recycling-argument-against

Throughout my life I have always been taught to recycle as much as I can, as often as I can. I never questioned these teachings because it seemed like the “environmentally friendly” thing to do. However, in Jordan Elias’ article entitled “Recycling: Argument Against”, (September 2009) she challenges this concept by proposing her arguments against the accepted reasons as to why members of society recycle , and by eventually making a claim regarding what she believes is the real idea behind recycling. She states that the general ideas of why we recycle (to help the environment, save resources, cut costs) are in fact not true and attempts to use this evidence to back up her strongest claim. Elias explains:

“I have thought long and hard about the rationale behind recycling, and the only reason I can think of for the hard push made by so many government and private organizations to encourage recycling is this: there are billions of dollars to be made by recycling.” (Elias 2009)

Elias’ tactic to validate this claim is to argue against the common beliefs of why we recycle. She states that first of all, recycled paper actually requires more resources than that of non-recycled paper. She then goes on to suggest that although it is the customary understanding that recycled goods cost less, eventually taxpayers end up paying for the difference. Lastly, she argues that by recycling, we are ultimately doubling our contribution towards environmental pollution.

Not only do I think that the claim is incorrect, but I also believe that the suggested arguments made show no real evidence within them and are unsuitable to solidify this claim. I will share the ideas behind my opinion in the following sections of this blog.

In her first argument, Elias explains that in order to make recycled paper, old paper and fresh pulp must be combined, which then requires a paper plant whose energy derives from burnt coal, oil, or gas. Although this may be a true statement, it does not provide evidence as to why she believes recycled paper requires more resources than non-recycled paper, considering the latter demands even more fresh pulp, as well as a paper plant to produce it. Furthermore, this does not give any support to her idea that the government and large organizations promote recycling for the sole reason that there is big money to be made.

During her second argument, Elias makes notice that although a roll of toilet paper made from recycled materials might be for sale for half a dollar less than a roll of “new” toilet paper, that fifty cents does not make up for the tax dollars being used to pay the recycling programs and the employees at the government-run recycling programs. My perspective on this assumption is that there are no given statistics that actually prove how much of a tax payer’s money goes towards these programs and their employees, as well as the amount of money that is needed to run these operations. Also, even if a consumer chose to purchase a good created from raw materials instead, they are still paying however many tax dollars towards these programs. So why not buy the less inexpensive item? More importantly, I believe that Elias' assumption shows no connection towards her notion that large corporations (including the government) promote recycling because it can make them millions of dollars. Whether she believes that the logic behind her argument is relevant to her claim or not, she never states this anywhere throughout the article.

Throughout her last argument, Elias backtracks to her first argument and simply repeats herself using a different example. She restates that by creating materials from recycled goods, we are consuming substantial amounts of other resources such as oil, gas, and coal. She even concludes this argument by saying that we are actually doubling our contribution to the pollution in our environment because the chain of salvaging recycled materials is never ending. Now it may seem like I am also backtracking and am using the same reasons as to why I disagree with this altercation, but the fact is that this author has just reiterated herself and gave no logical reasoning as to how recycling materials consumes more energy than creating “fresh and new” materials. In reality, utilizing old materials to construct something new alludes to the fact that less “virgin” materials are required; therefore fewer of these energy consuming components need to be produced. When considering the relationship between production and the environment, the lesser the production, the better. Once again, this concept does not apply to her main claim, as there is no relationship between the two.

Elias essentially believes that recycling is a hoax, and defends her theory by stating that this so-called environmentally friendly activity actually increases our resource consumption and contribution to environmental pollution, as well as costs us more money. She uses these arguments as building blocks to stabilize her claim that society is encouraged to recycle in order for the government and corporations to make a profit. Unfortunately, not only do these arguments show a lack of logic, but they also have no connection as to how money can be made from recycling. Although in this day and age money plays a key role in our society, I optimistically believe that the act of recycling is not monetarily beneficial, but is environmentally rewarding. Not only does it reduce our consumption of raw materials, but it has the potential to reprocess something that would have otherwise taken up space in a landfill. I believed this previous to reading this article and Elias was unsuccessful to have me believe otherwise.

Reference
Elias, J. (2009) Recycling: Argument Against. Helium, September 2009. http://www.helium.com/items/912196-recycling-argument-against. Accessed 21 Sept 2009.

On Biodegradable Plastics

2009-09-28T09:15:00.000-07:00

In his article Compostable and "Biodegradable" Plastics Provide False Sense of Responsibility, September, 2009 ( http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/compostable-and-biodegradable-plastics-false-security.php ) the author, Adam Lowry, notes an increasing trend in the use of biodegradable plastic in products such as cups and cutlery. He goes on to disapprove of the use of all such products, which are made of polylactic acid and are commonly referred to as PLA plastic. His argument suggests that since PLA products must be composted in order to properly biodegrade, by using them we are giving a false sense of responsibility that we are doing good for the environment when we really aren't, because they may not get composted. He also says that without composting infrastructure, these products are no better than ordinary plastics.

On this front, Lowry makes a connection between PLA’s providing a false sense of responsibility, and failure of the products to make their way into composting systems. But he does so without giving any statistics or supporting evidence to show how often or seldom they are actually composted. One could ask, what percentage of these products aren’t being composted?

He refers to one restaurant in the San Francisco area that uses PLA products, and even admits that these are likely to be composted because San Francisco has mandatory composting laws. But he also suggests that this solution only works because this restaurant happens to be in the only city (in the U.S.) with such laws. Does this mean PLA products in other areas are some how less likely to make it to compost?

Again he has failed to provide any evidence to support his argument, and actually provides an example where PLA products are proving to be an effective way to reduce waste. This is where one of the failures in Lowry’s argument comes from. He takes a stand against the use of PLA products in general, without considering the possibility that they would be able to be composted in any number of different specific areas. I will later show how this is indeed the case.

In the final two paragraphs of his article, Lowry, a designer, goes on to comment that we need to look at a broader model from a designer’s perspective. He suggests that a better model, in which material specification and recovery are coupled on a national or global basis, would lead to the following positive outcomes: more composting infrastructure would develop, and a transition to more biomaterials would result. Lowry fails to recognize that these positive trends are already occurring! This, despite his opening sentence noting the increased use of PLA products! He also fails to recognize that these trends support the further use of PLA products. More households in Canada are using composting programs. According to the Households and the Environment Survey, 27% of Canadian households composted in 2006, compared to 23% in 19941. From 2000 to 2004, the amount of organic waste that was composted in Canada increased by 70% to 1.7 million tonnes2. The average Canadian diverted 51 kg of organic waste from land fills by composting in 2004, compared to 32 kg in 2000. This increase in Canada can be attributed to the introduction of new composting programs and the expansion of existing organics collection programs to accept food wastes3. As the Composting Council of Canada points out on their website (http://www.compost.org/compostinggrowsstronger.html), there continues to be an increase in Canada in the number of cities that include composting programs, such as with curbside pick up, in the number of Canadians who participate in composting, and in the amount of compost materials diverted from land fills, across almost all regions of the country. And as Sarah Amandolare notes in her article, interest in composting has surged in San Francisco, with the amount of compost materials being collected having risen by 15% in recent months, while many restaurants are already avid composters4.

So while Lowry spends time looking for broader, global solutions to waste management, PLA products, coupled with ever-increasing involvement in composting programs, offer an immediate means of reducing waste.

References:

1. Statistics Canada, 2007
2. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/2008001/10540-eng.htm
3. IBID
4. Amandolare, California's Compost Law Could Spark New Trend,
September 10, 2009, http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/environment/2009/sep/California-s-Compost-Law-Could-Spark-New-Trend-.html

Powerful Ideas Critique

2009-09-27T08:59:00.000-07:00

In the article “Powerful Ideas: Bacteria Clean Sewage and Create Electricity” (31 August 2009) by Charles Q. Choi, the possibility of using bacteria to clean waste is explored. The author states that “microbes could help generate power by cleaning up organic waste at the same time” (Choi 2009) He details discoveries made by the Penn State University’s environmental engineer Bruce Logan and Derek Lovley from the University of Massachusetts. Choi also voices that the possibilities of such a discovery are numerous. However Choi’s article lacks a number of key information that would allow the reader to form an educated opinion on the topic.

Choi’s evidence for his claim are the positive results published by both Logan and Lovley that imply that bacteria can be used to efficiently reduce saline concentration from wastewater while creating usable electricity. He summarizes both scientists on their results, “Geobacter can break down some 90 percent,” (Lovely 2009). However Choi uses evidence that only raise more questions than answer. He frequently uses quotes from the scientists themselves, but fails to elaborate. For example Choi quotes; “Geobacter grows by breaking down organic materials and transferring electrons pretty much onto anything that looks like iron,” (Lovley 2009) however after the statement he does not elaborate on how this would be useful in using bacteria to create energy. He also does not say how the waste organic matter is converted into usable electricity.

Another argument Choi makes is that wastewater would provide an almost limitless supply of energy. He does however state the statistics of energy produced, and recognizes that the energy produced by the bacteria is significantly lower than what is consumed, “they could provide roughly 500 trillion BTUs of energy – an impressive figure until compared with the roughly 100 000 trillion BTUs of energy the United States uses every year.”(Choi 2009) He counters this with the statement that the energy created from cleaning the wastewater of “animal, food industry and domestic wastewaters” (Choi 2009) could render the filtering and treatment processes self sufficient.

Choi then furthers his claims by stating that further advancements in the waste to energy process lie in the genetic engineering of the bacteria. He quotes positive results as evidence, also summarizing briefly, “resulting bacteria all had more hair-like filaments known as pili . . . more pili could lead to even more productive microbes” (Choi 2009). Here is another example of where Choi’s evidence fails to inform but rather raises confusions. He fails to add how pili themselves are related to the conversion of waste to electricity and why it is advantageous to breed these microbes.

Genetically engineering these microbes for commercial use also raises concerns that Choi either does not realize or ignores. For example he does not explore the environmental impact of the genetically engineered microbes if any were accidentally introduced into the surrounding habitat.

I think that Choi makes a reasonable claim, yet is somewhat overly optimistic in his views. He needs back up his ideas with more statistical facts and not leave out any negative effects the bacteria could have. He also needs to choose his evidence with more care rather than randomly quoting the researchers. He however supplies some useful evidence to his arguments. Though many are not sufficient for the readers to decide for themselves whether or not they can believe in a new energy source from bacteria as something they could support. I believe that Choi’s written views are sound however it does not seem like he has considered all sides of the issue, proven by the lack of negative effects or setbacks stated. His article plays more like an advertisement rather than a critical look at up and coming technology.

Reference:

Choi, Q. Peter (2009) Powerful Ideas: Bacteria Clean Sewage and Create Electricity. LiveScience, 31 August 2009. http://www.livescience.com/environment/090831-ideas-germ-power.html. Accessed September 25, 2009.

The Great Nuclear Waste Debate

2009-09-27T08:21:00.000-07:00

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/05/goodbye-yucca-mountain-hello-d.html
As oil and natural gas reservoirs continue to decline, the race to find an alternative “green” energy source to power our global society has never been more critical. While efforts are being made to further develop hydro, wind and solar power sources, nuclear energy continues to be an area of intense interest. Unfortunately, one of the major issues with nuclear power is the management of the nuclear waste. Originally, nuclear waste was stored in facilities both above and underground. Now new reprocessing technology offers an alternative to the nuclear waste management dilemma. However, opinions continue to be divided over which strategy is better.
In The New Scientist Short sharp science blog, “Is it safe to store US nuclear waste above ground?” (19 May 2009), correspondent Phil McKenna criticizes the current direction that the United States is taking in terms of the management of its nuclear waste. McKenna claims that the United States should be directing money and effort towards investing in existing reprocessing technology rather than storing the nuclear waste in storage facilities until more efficient technology is developed. While McKenna does provide evidence to support his claim, the lack of statistical data weakens the impact and persuasiveness of his evidence.
Two main pieces of evidence are presented:
1. Storage facilities are not safe because conditions are less than ideal.
2. Reprocessing technology is a better alternative because weapon grade plutonium is produced.
McKenna attempts to support his claim by questioning the safety of existing facilities and promotes the benefits of reprocessing technologies used in Japan. However, every point he makes is backed up by little evidence which at best provides little if any credible data.
When he questions the safety of storage facilities the only “evidence” he presents is:
“So which is better? Storing spent fuel for decades on end in less than ideal storage conditions while working on developing safer, more efficient reprocessing technology, or reprocessing the fuel today into plutonium rich fuel?”(McKenna 2009)
He makes a statement questioning the safety of storage facilities but provides no actual data to strengthen it. In fact, he adds that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission states that the storage facilities have had no incidences for the past 20 years. Where he actually provides some numerical proof it contradicts what he is claiming. He mentions that the UK has had some leakage issues with similar facilities but again he doesn’t back it up with actual examples or even numerical statistics.
For his second piece of evidence McKenna also fails to provide significant data or even examples that would give stability and credibility to his evidence. Matthew Bunn, a scientist, claims that existing reprocessing technology is not worth investing in because it is expensive, inefficient and does not produce that much more energy. The only rebuttal McKenna provides is a single sentence stating that the technology can produce weapon grade plutonium. Once again, the evidence that is provided is very limited and lacks any actual facts or certainty.
The main weakness in McKenna’s argument is the strength of his evidence. He provides little numerical data or actual examples of the claims he is making, while only providing actual data and quotes to points that contradict his evidence. The lack of examples and certainty in his evidence weaken his claim and therefore the overall impact of his argument.

References
McKenna, P. (2009) Is it safe to store US nuclear waste above ground? The New Scientist, Short Sharp Science, 19 May 2009. http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/05/goodbye-yucca-mountain-hello-d.html. Accessed 23 Sept 2009.

Topic Assigned

2009-09-21T11:50:00.000-07:00

Today, our group's blog topic was assigned. We shall be posting on the topic of 'Waste Management'.

First Blog

2009-09-14T12:47:00.001-07:00

Hello All,

This is our first blog for our group. Here we'll work to get our user names/accounts set up.

-Trevor