Paper or Plastic, or Biodegradable, or Canvas, or…

Have you ever consider the amount of plastic bags you have used over the course of your consumer career? Have you ever considered where those bags go when you are done with them? The average lifespan for a plastic bag is 12 minutes before being tossed away to spend the rest of it’s life in a landfill with the other 2.8 million tons of plastic waste the UK alone produces annually. With this in mind, is there a more environmentally conscious alternative or solution?

The most common and available alternative to plastic bags is paper bags. Plastic bags require 40-70% less energy to manufacture than paper bags, it takes 91% less energy to recycle a pound of plastic than required to recycle a pound of paper, and plastic bags generate 80% less waste than paper bags. Biodegradable bags are gaining popularity but are they a viable option? Biodegradable bags break down when exposed to sunlight, oxygen, soil, moisture, and microbes, however they are still petroleum-based. Moreover, the chemicals used to make these bags eventually show up in the food chain and ultimately our bodies.

Reusable bags are also in the option spectrum. Canvas totes were the first reusable shopping bag to ever gain any attention but because they are typically made from cotton, but they use a significant amount of water in their production. Polyester bags are about the same size as your average plastic bag and each one creates just 89 grams of greenhouse gas emissions – or the same as about seven plastic bags. Polypropylene bags are comparable to brown paper bags and producing one creates 138 grams of greenhouse gas emissions – or the same as about eleven plastic bags.

There is no silver bullet to eliminate plastic bag usage but rather a commingling of existing examples that can show us how we can reduce the impact of wasteful consumption of plastic bags. For instance, a 90% reduction in the use of plastic bags was achieved by the South African government in 2002 when they required manufacturers to make plastic bags more durable and expensive, thus discouraging their use and waste. At the same time, supermarkets all over the world are implementing small charges for using plastic or offering refunds for returning bags. Still, the most environmentally conscious thing you can do is utilize reusable bags, reuse plastic bags, and really think twice about whether or not you need a plastic bag at all.

Coral Reef Destruction

Coral reef destruction is becoming a greater environmental issue everyday. For example, in the Phillipines 70% of reef has been completely destroyed and only 5% remains unharmed. The destruction is mainly contributed to humans because of the way that we live. These reefs may be damaged in a variety of ways that include global warming, water pollution, sediment from coastal development, and destructive fishing techniques (dynamite).

The main way a coral reef dies is know as coral bleaching, due to a change in their natural habitat. Coral reefs are extremely important in many aspects environmentally and economically. They protect and shorelines from erosion and storm damage. Economically, these reefs bring in a lot of tourists to admire their beauty and to fish among the water they inhabit.

Since about 30% of the reefs are completely destroyed it is very important that we work harder to protect them. The main thing to focus on is global warming by reducing pollution and polluted water runoff. Using less fossil fuels and water will reduce emissions from cars and wastewater from getting into the oceans. Other helpful ways to help in the protection of coral reefs are planting trees, volunteering for coral reef cleanup, and also, doing something as simple as spreading the word of the harms of the degradation. 

You've Got To Be Sh*ttin' Me

All jokes aside.  There is potential to develop energy from waste, both, reducing methane gas emissions from both swine manure lagoons and waste landfills.  This eliminates rising emission problems from two large industries, as well as helps to fight global warming by lower the total methane emission rates.  Studies have shown that methane is around twenty times more dangerous of a greenhouse gas than CO₂.  We could potentially kill two birds with one stone by creating an alternative energy source and severely reducing the dangers of methane gas emissions on global warming.  Methane (CH₄) gas can be captured from swine manure lagoons and landfills and stored then burned to heat water to steam spin a turbine to create energy.  The chemical equation of the combustion of methane gas is as follows: CH₄ + 2O₂ à CO₂ + 2H₂O.  Burning the gas simply reduces the methane to water and carbon dioxide, which can then be properly emitted back into the atmosphere and produce energy to run the plant and surrounding areas. 

This technology seems like such as smart idea to me that it frustrates me that you don’t hear more about it or it is not getting the exposure you think it would.  I still need to further research the potential of the technology itself, however, from what I have read there seems to be no downfalls.  You are creating an alternative energy source and eliminating pollution problems from two other industries. 

There have be some studies done on the future and potential of this technology being done at swine manure treatment plants in Chile.  I think there are also a few studies being completed by various universities around the United States.  However, I was unable to find and/ or fully interpret and understand the results I did find.  But, I could not find any arguments against the idea of this new technology either.  So, I say we getting the wheels rolling on some large scale plans to improve our environment and our quality of life.  

Environmental Injustice in Grand Bois

In 1994 in Grand Bois, Louisiana waste from oil spills was driven through this small town to be dumped into the ground at a Campbell Wells Toxic Dump site. This was toxic waste that seeped into the ground, the water supply and polluted the air. The workers who brought in the waste wore protective clothing, and masks. The smell was so bad that the whole town was gagging when they went outside. Reports from people in the community stated that "children were getting off the school buses with shirts over their mouths". People reported sore throats and burning eyes. The towns people were being forced to endure dangerously high amounts of air hydrogen sulfide and they got very sick. Childern were examnied by doctors and were found to have unusually high blood lead levels, respiratory and gastrointestinal problems. The towns people were never warned of any hazardous that came with the waste. They were not told to take any percautions, even though the men handling the waste did. This oil company was allowed to do this becuase most waste from oil is unregulated. They were just allowed to dump it and no one could do anything about it. The members of the community in Grand Bois went through a very lengthy and expensive law suit but the oil company was eventually cleared of any charges.
This is a clear case of Environmental injustice. Not only is Grand Bois a very small community, only about 250 people live there it is also made up of mostly blue collar workers. They happen to be mostly Native American as well. The oil company assumed that these people would not cause any problems. Of course they would notice the smell, and the trucks but its not like these people of Grand Bois have the money to do anything about it. I feel that the oil company willing took advantage of these people and then pretended as if they did nothing wrong. The significance of these events is that they prove environmental justice is real, the huge oil company took advantage of this small town. The most amazing part is that the oil company did not actually break any law, becuase up until this point the waste was unregulated. Cases like this are significant in regards to changing laws to better protect people.

US helps declare first national park in Afghanistan

In hopes of attracting international tourism, obtaining World Heritage Status and protecting land, Afghanistan has declared its first internationally recognized national park. Coinciding with Earth Day, celebrated worldwide every year April 22, officials signed a decree to create Band-e-Amir National Park, encompassing six mountain-fed lakes held back by natural calcified dams. Band-e-Amir translated to mean, "Dam of the Amir" is a spectacular series of six deep blue lakes separated by natural dams made of travertine, a mineral deposit. Travertine systems are only found in a few locations around the world and are all considered World Heritage sites as well as major international tourist attractions. Band-e-Amir has been a tourist destination since the 1950's but was absent as such due to increased violence in the late 1970's through 2001. It is visited by thousands of Afghan tourists as well as religious pilgrimages and international tourists in country each year. Planning for the park has gone on for decades but was launched in 2006. "The park will draw people from Herat to Kabul to Jalalabad... to be inspired by the great beauty of Afghanistan's first national park, Band-e-Amir, " said Mostapha Zaher, NEPA's director-general.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) helped to fund the creation of the park as well as identify and delineate the boundaries. The WCS also helped performed preliminary wildlife surveys and aided the government in hiring and training local rangers, developing the management plan for the park, and providing assistance to the government to craft the laws authorizing the park’s creation. The National Environment Protection Agency (NEPA) of Afghanistan will manage the park, along with the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock, and the Band-e-Amir Protected Area Committee.
Band-e-Amir has lost much of its wildlife due to human degradation, but the WCS surveys indicate that it still contains ibex (a species of wild goat) and urial (a type of wild sheep) along with wolves, foxes, smaller mammals and fish, and various bird species including the Afghan snow finch, which is believed to be the only bird found exclusively in Afghanistan. Also snow leopards once inhabited the area but are no longer present due to hunting. The park may be the creation of an Afghan Protected Area System which would share borders with other nations that contain a rich diversity of wildlife.
Conservation of land and the creation of national parks has become a topic on many peoples mind in the last few decades, and it is refreshing to see a step in the right direction from a country plagued with violence. For me when I think of Afghanistan, national parks with beautiful blue lakes does not immediately come to mind. Hopefully now Afghanistan will get some recognition for taking the step to declared Band-e-Amir a national park. It is important that agencies of United States are able and willing to help establish programs like this one to not only help that country but to help on a global level. Environmental issues are not restricted to our country and I think the establishment of this park sets a precedent which needs to be repeated in other countries.
With the introduction of this park, improved knowledge and interest in the environment is almost guaranteed to those in the area. We need more people to become aware of the benefits of national parks and conservation and hopefully this project will spark something to that effect. I imagine that with the success of Band-e-Amir there will be a push to create new policies and environmental laws in the region, which could drastically change the way land is managed and possibly save land and species which are already in danger.

Saving the Salton Sea

The Salton Sea has had many different names since being discovered by the Spanish in Southern California; the Colorado Desert, Valley of the Ancient Lake, and eventually became associated with the name Salton. Salt mining in the area traces back to 1815 and became a large scale operation feeding the Los Angeles area by 1884. This enormous basin was never actually a "sea" however in 1905 the swelling Colorado River overflowed the Imperial Dyke and for two years fed water into the basin, filling it into a salty inland sea.

Currently, the Salton Sea is a birdwatching paradise, and has been home to over 400 species of birds. It supports a high population of the American White Pelican and is a resting area for many birds on the Pacific Flyway. The Salton Sea is susceptible to bacteria and pesticide influxes from the New River (of Mexico) and due to having no outlet and high salinity, the Sea acts like a cesspool for fish and aviary diseases and epidemics. Since 1980, there have been numerous fish die-offs and aviary versions of botulism, cholera, and Newcastle Disease have all been discovered in the Sea. Currently, Tilapia are the only fish that live in the water which has a salinity of 4.4% (almost 25% more than sea waters 3.5%).

There have been hundreds of proposed plans for saving the marine life and ecosystem in the Salton Sea and in 2000 the Salton Sea Authority proposed a plan to save the Sea using a combination of Dams throughout the Sea to partition the salt areas from the freshwater areas. This was met by opposition due to the lack of stable land from the San Andreas Fault and the partitioning of the ecosystems.

Finally a California State Government Ruling (official player), involved with the local government and geological researchers developed a plan that would create a large salt basin in 60% of the current Sea and would retain the rest for ecological and environmental purposes. Had the Salton Sea been left as is, more outbreaks of avian viruses could be possible and further environmental destruction. Some of the plans though were just too expensive , including the possibility of piping fresh seawater into the basin and saline water out. This is the right decision considering the government of California was put in a position where no action causes the end of the Salton Sea and too much action might cause the same thing. It is an example of the government deciding to spend the money (9 Billion dollars to save the Sea) that is taxpayers dollars to save an ecological and environmental landmark that humans helped create. It might not be the best solution but with the information that we have now, and influence from both official and unofficial actors, a decision was made and implemented (starting in the year 2011). Also, the government has used this to its advantage adding a saline habitat that will be a major tourist attraction and will generate revenue for the state.

Permanent Pipeline Construction Will Aid Sabine Marsh Restoration

Earlier this month, the US Army Corps of Engineers awarded $9 million to contract Wilco Pipeline Contractors of Rayne, Louisiana in order to construct a 3.6 mile permanent pipeline that will be used to carry dredged material from the Calcasieu River Ship Channel to the marshes in Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes. Dredging is the act of removing sedimentation from shallow sea areas or freshwater and moving it to a different location. This process has been the most effective technology for cleaning up contaminated sediments, as well as reducing the concentration found within the sediment.

The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act project (CWPPRA), along with federal agencies and the state of Louisiana, have been constructing this plan since 1999, and have already restored 907 acres withing the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. This site in particular is experiencing degradation from saltwater intrusion, as well as freshwater loss. "The project is intended to strategically create marsh in large, open water areas to block wind-induced saltwater introduction and freshwater loss. It will also increase nourishment in adjacent marshes while reducing open water fetch and the erosion of marsh fringe." Other alternatives have been the No Action Plan, or using projects developed only under the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Program (BUDMAT). Over the past 17 years, CWPPRA has constructed and designed 147 projects, and have helped to restore over 120,000 acres of coastal wetlands. By the end of the project, they hope to restore approximately 2500 acres of marsh using dredged materials.

I feel this is an important subject matter that needed to be addressed due to the significant amounts of shore and marshland that are being destroyed every year. The amount of freshwater available is being lost, as well as increased erosion being caused by the wave fetch in the area. Not only will waterways continue to be navigable, but hundred of acres of new habitat will be available for community wildlife and other plant species. The greatest economic benefit of the plan is that it has been proven to be a somewhat simple process, as well as less expensive to restore marshes.

California Tackles Invasive Fish Problem

Lake Davis in California has been encountering problems with Northern pike, a nonnative invasive fish species that threatens California’s aquatic resources. Northern pike are top predators built for speed and camouflaged for an edge in hunting. Pike are also highly reproductive making their presence in Lake Davis an even larger problem to control. The Lake has undergone treatment for this problem in the past but unfortunately treatment failed and the problem persists.

The Department of Forest and Game conducted an environmental review process with the U.S. Forest Service in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act. After extensive public outreach and input, several pike elimination alternatives were evaluated. The Department of Forest and Game determined that rotenone, a naturally occurring compound, is the piscicide that had the fewest environmental impacts so in turn will be used to kill off the species. It has also been approved for fishery management use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as well as the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. The Department of Fish and Game will also be setting up checkpoints at Lake Davis in order to help educate the public about laws and regulations and allow for the detection of violations of fish and game laws, as well as facilitate the gathering of biological and statistical data related to the pike problem.

According to Ryan Broddrick, director of the state Department of Fish and Game, "It's imperative this eradication project quickly moves forward. Given the ever-increasing pike population, the increasing incidence of anglers catching moving live pike, and the potential for spilling of the reservoir in extremely wet years, it is critical to minimize any delay." The goal is to finish the eradication of Pike in the lake and begin restocking the lake with trout. The eradication of this ambush predator is important in maintaining the unique ecology of Lake Davis. The Pike are growing in number and in turn adversely affecting the ecology of the reservoir. The species are highly tolerant and adaptable making it easy for the Northern Pike to overtake other species. Many steps are being taken to remove the species from this lake as well as preparing legislation to ensure that the species doesn’t spread to other areas of California.

Interstate 3 - Needed Economic Boon or Unnecessary Ecological Burden?

About 44 years ago, a plan for Interstate 3 was drafted. It can be basically summed up as a four lane interstate cutting through a mountainous area in southern Appalachia called Corridor K. Controversies rage over the plans, as current traffic through the area is well handled by existing roads. Proponents claim that it will add almost seven thousand jobs to the area within five years, greatly boosting the economy. Opponents voice other concerns - in this limited economy, the money already badly needed for resurfacing worn, oft-used roads should not be diverted to build a forseeably extraneous new road , especially one that would cut through miles of fragile Appalachian mountain ecosystems.
Local public opposition to the interstate is high. Resolutions against I3 have been passed in seven North Carolina counties, five Georgia counties, and one county in South Carolina . Current traffic between Chattanooga and Asheville is well handled by existing routes (mainly US 64 and US 74), and all possible routes for I3 cut through some portion of either the Nantahala National Forest or the Cherokee National Forest, which is inappropriate for several reasons. Firstly, from personal experience, the economies of most areas in Corridor K depend on tourism, which is high due in great part to the remoteness and general pristine nature of the area. By building an interstate through these areas, rather than open the area to more visitors, fewer tourists will be inclined to visit. Alternately, the influx of too many tourists may lead to “tourist traps,” which further harm the environment and drastically change the character of the small rural towns currently pervasive in the area. Additionally, the national forests that would be disturbed are critical for water quality and species habitat. Several of the areas have large streams and rivers as well as significant annual rainfall, making their water quality a great influence on that of the entire watershed. Were a road to be built through the area, sediment pollution would be a great problem, as would buried streams due to road leveling. Lastly, the expense of such a road is unjustified. Mountainous roads such as the proposed I3 can cost over $25 million per mile, resulting in an almost $4 billion cost total to build I3. The 7000 new jobs promised by the Tennessee DOT sound good, but even if all of them were 30,000 a year only $210 million per year in personal income would be created. At that rate, even with no upkeep costs, it would take over 19 years to pay for itself, assuming that detrimental economic effects are zero. It also doesn’t pay when one realizes that with the end of cheap oil near, increased commercial transport by semi trucks is no longer a future opportunity, and any road created with such a scenario in mind is ignoring the prices at the gas pump. Instead, we should be looking into things like Obama's new high speed rail system for increased transit, but that is a blog for another day.

Stricter Standards for Non-road Engines

Most people do not associate air pollution with mowing the lawn or recreational boating. Yet they are a significant source of pollution. They emit high levels of carbon monoxide, a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas. They also emit hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, pollutants that contribute to the formation of ozone. Ozone occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere and shields the earth from harmful radiation, but ozone at ground level is a toxic pollutant. Ground-level ozone is a key element of smog and impairs lung functions. Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set new strict regulations for gas-powered lawn equipment and marine engines. This is a public health issue and an effort by EPA to reduce the pollutants emitted from a wide range of non-road engines. These standards will take effect in 2010 and 2011.

EPA concluded that when these regulations take affect they would yield annual emission reductions of 600,000 tons of hydrocarbons, 130,000 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx), 5,500 tons of direct particulate matter, and 1.5 million tons of carbon monoxide (CO). They also expect that the new standards will save approximately 190 million gallons of gasoline per year. To meet these new exhaust emission standards, manufacturers will likely use catalytic converters in small watercraft and lawn and garden equipment. According to EPA analysis, the small engine regulation will increase the cost of equipment by an average of $5-7 per unit, but durability and fuel efficiency will improve for most small engines. These improvements in engine technology and reduction of fuel may offset the overall increase in cost.

Non-road gasoline-powered engines, such as those used in lawn and garden equipment, will see an additional 35 percent reduction in smog-forming hydrocarbon and NOx emissions. The updated engines will also achieve a 45 percent reduction in fuel evaporative emissions. Recreational boats powered by gasoline engines will have a 70 percent reduction in hydrocarbons and NOx emissions, a 20 percent reduction in CO and a 70 percent reduction in fuel evaporative emissions. This is a good step by EPA to regulate many greenhouse gases and limit overall exposure to many pollutants coming from non-road engines. Each year, Americans spend more than 3 billion hours using lawn and garden equipment and more than 500 million hours in recreational boating. The emission reduction has a total estimated public health benefit ranging from $1.6 and $4.4 billion by 2030. These benefits outweigh the costs and reductions will prevent an estimated 300 premature deaths, 1,700 hospitalizations, and 23,000 lost workdays annually.