Archives

Uncategorized — 4 Comments
02
Feb 22

The Effects of Marine Pollution on Society

Reduce, reuse, recycle. Sound familiar? Many of us learned about the “three r’s” in elementary school. By now, you should be aware of the importance of protecting our environment and conserving natural resources. Ask yourself, have you made a conscious effort to protect our planet and educate yourself? If not, this blog is intended for you!

Widespread ocean pollution is damaging to marine life, humans, and the environment. There are many types of ocean pollution including mercury, oil spills, pesticides, chemical and trash. I will be discussing the last two. Chemical pollution occurs when chemicals, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, flow into the ocean through waterways. These chemicals create algal blooms, a type of bacterial pollution and anti-microbial resistance (Hayward, 2020). The decomposition of algal blooms lowers oxygen levels which kills fish. In addition, they generate toxins that are harmful to wildlife, marine creatures, and humans (National Geographic Society, 2019).

Trash pollution is mostly plastic waste that ends up in the ocean. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (2022), “…the plastic waste harms physical habitats for wildlife, transports chemical and nutrient pollutants, and interferes with human uses of river, marine and coastal environments.” I am sure you have seen pictures of six-pack rings strangling seagull’s necks, seals being suffocated by shopping bags, turtles entangled in fishing gear, and dolphins swallowing bottle caps. Plastic breaks down into microplastic which some marine species feed on. The manufactured chemicals from the microplastics absorbs into their tissue (National Geographic Society, 2019). We then consume contaminated seafood. These chemicals can damage our nervous system and increase the risk of cancer and infertility (Hayward, 2020).

There is no doubt that marine pollution is harmful, and often life threatening, to all living organisms. So, how do we solve this issue? Let’s apply Steg and Vleck’s (2009) four steps for promoting pro-environmental behavior to this resource dilemma.

The first step is to choose a specific behavior to change that will benefit the environment. In this case, the behavior I want to change is marine pollution. Next, examine the factors that underly the behavior (Steg & Vlek, 2009). To arrive at a solution, you must identify what caused the problem (Gruman et al., 2017, p.72). In this situation, the precipitating factor is littering the perpetuating factors are increasing plastic production and using single-use plastic. The third step is designing and implementing an intervention. There are plenty of actions we can take to protect the global marine environment. Let us begin with the “three r’s.” This approach promotes better waste management. Reduce plastic production, reuse materials, and recycle by creating new products out of old ones. Companies such as Bayou use recycled material to create sustainable luxury. The government could also ban single-use plastic and coal combustion (Hayward, 2020).The last step is to evaluate the intervention.

Although the EPA is currently making valid efforts to address land-based sources of marine pollution, it is up to us to implement these changes.

References

Environmental Protection Agency. (2022). Protecting the Global Marine Environment.    EPA. Retrieved February 3, 2022, from https://www.epa.gov/international-            cooperation/protecting-global-marine-environment

Gruman, J.A.,Schneider, F.W., & Coutts, L.A. (2017). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hayward, E. (2020). Oceans in peril, humans at risk. Ocean Pollution Poses Risk to Human Health, Report Shows. https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/bcnews/science-tech-and-health/earth-environment-and-sustainability/landrigan-ocean-report.html

National Geographic Society. (2019). Marine pollution. Society. Retrieved February 3, 2022, from https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/marine-pollution/

Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317.

Uncategorized — No Comments
20
Sep 21

World Food Energy Nexus: Examining the Food Sustainability Resource Dilemma

world food energy nexus

Chapter 13 of our text, Applied Social Psychology, discusses the argument of “freedom in the commons” (Gruman et al., 2016), which is the concept of having a carte blanche attitude towards finite environmental resources – such as water, food, or energy. Gruman et al. expand further on the topic, noting that “when the supply of a resource seems large or nearly limitless, individuals seem to feel free to exploit the resource as much as possible” therefore some people may tend to indulge in the self-absorbed process of the tragedy of the commons, where “each person is locked into a system that compels” them to harvest “without limit” (Gruman et al., 2016). In the last five years, my 23-year-old daughter and I have been discussing the impending lack of natural resources in the future which could devastate the sustainability and availability of food globally and what steps we could take now to ensure that we appropriately planning for our family’s future food needs. 

For nearly the last decade, I lived in the Southwest in Arizona. When I first moved to the Sonoran desert, the winter months were cold (between the 20°’s to 30°’s) and misty, with occasional light rain lasting very short periods of time adding to the chance of an Arizona super bloom spring season (Google Images, 2021). In the first few years I was there, in the summer months there were a plethora of monsoons and haboobs as well, which in later seasons seemed to be more sparse. Having grown up and spent much of my life in South Florida, I was used to heavy amounts of rain, thunderstorms, and tropical depressions. So when I moved to the desert, I started keeping a rain journal so that I could track how many days of precipitation there was each year – and while I understand that for some that may be a weird thing to keep track of – I was able to see through my own collection of observed data how climate change was affecting weather patterns in the Southwest and Western United States. In fact, this is one of the reasons that my daughter Julianna and I moved back East to Central Pennsylvania this summer. 

In the last year before we left Arizona, we had heard about many homes and landowners in Arizona whose wells had run dry. In fact, The Guardian reported on the water crisis from just one area in Arizona in the article Mega-dairies, disappearing wells, and Arizona’s deepening water crisis, this June stating that extreme water situations where aquifers below wells are running dry are causing landowners to simply abandon their property since “those who can afford to just dig deeper” are draining the already strained aquifers to the extent that they are “leaving homes high and dry as the aquifer is drained” (2021). Another story published recently by AZ Central shows a similar issue continuing to occur in rural areas of Arizona, stating that “chronic overpumping has been depleting groundwater” since “large farms with deep wells have pumped from the aquifers, water levels have dropped and some nearby homeowners have been left with dry wells” (Ian James, The Arizona Republic, 2021). Additionally, the crisis has also affected Californians and the California farming industry which currently ranks first in agricultural cash receipts at 13.7% market share of total U.S.D.A. receipts (Cash Receipts by Commodity State Ranking, 2020). 

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that “farmers are backing away from one of their most profitable crops: almonds” and are “grinding up trees” or “bulldozing thousands of acres’ worth of almond orchards that cannot be irrigated,” while “dropping plans to plant more as they confront what farmers say could be a hotter, drier future” (Newman, 2021). State and federal government has continued this year with “looming restrictions on groundwater usage” where the “situation is reshaping the state’s food sector, forcing farmers to reassess which crops they will have the water to produce, and where” (Newman, 2021). Additionally, this is causing supply chain concerns nationally, where food-company executives are challenged and ”tasked with keeping grocery store shelves filled when reservoirs or wells run dry” (Newman, 2021). Since California “grows about 80% of the world’s supply of almonds,” it is a growing concern as farmers “foresee an end of the unconstrained growth in almond supply” (Newman, 2021).

NPR published an article in August, citing that farmers had reported that the “drought has drained reservoirs that supply water to Central Valley farms” to the extent that “state and federal officials have reduced water for agriculture, forcing many farmers to leave fields fallow” (Climate Change In California Is Threatening The World’s Top Almond Producer, 2021). One California farmer estimates that “about a third of California’s orchards are planted in areas with unreliable water supplies” which many “won’t survive the drought” and states that “neighbors have stopped irrigating their orchards, and they’re letting the trees die” (Climate Change In California Is Threatening The World’s Top Almond Producer, 2021). 

A recent research article cited that “droughts and pandemics cause disruptions to global food supply chains” where the “21st century has seen the frequent occurrence of both natural and human disasters, including droughts and pandemics,” specifically the recent impacts of COVID-19 (Mishra et al., 2021). The researchers discuss how the impact of droughts and pandemics “can be compounded, leading to severe economic stress and malnutrition” leading to “institutional changes, including a water bank that introduced trading among regions” and California farmers adapting only “through an increased reliance on groundwater” (Mishra et al., 2021). In 2019, researchers from UC Davis set out to find sustainable solutions and strategies for future food production and published an article with their findings. Parker et al. discussed how “extreme heat events will challenge agricultural production and raise the risk of food insecurity” in that “California is the largest agricultural producer in the United States, and climate change and extreme heat may significantly affect the state’s food production” (2020). The researchers cited “warming anomalies” in causing “significant losses in woody perennial cropping systems” where “losses have widespread repercussions for California as the producer of more than two-thirds of US-grown fruits and nuts, including more than 99% of many US-grown high-value perennials” (Parker et al., 2020). The Water Food Energy Nexus is being researched globally, and I found many articles supporting new interventions to deal with food sustainability. Italian researchers in Bari published results of solutions for “the energy–water nexus” where “attention is focused on energy audits of water distribution network” to implement strategies supporting “diversification and rotation of crops, cultivation of drought-resistant crops, and optimization process of the spatial distribution of cropping patterns” (Scardigno, 2020). 

The 2020 World Population Data Sheet indicates that the world population is projected to increase from 7.8 billion in 2020 to 9.9 billion by 2050  (Hub, 2020). Compared to 2017, the number of persons aged “60 or above is expected to more than double by 2050 and to more than triple by 2100, rising from 962 million globally in 2017 to 2.1 billion in 2050 and 3.1 billion in 2100” particularly noting that the number of “persons aged 80 or over is projected to triple by 2050”(World Population Projected to Reach 9.8 Billion in 2050, United Nations, 2017). In 2019, an article published in the Frontiers in Environmental Science gave stark warnings that “projections are that the global demand for resources is going to escalate” to “hot, hungry, crowded, and fast evaporating planet” estimating that the “growth in demand for food, water, and energy by 2030 will be 35, 40, and 50 percent, respectively” because of an “increasing population, urbanization, and an additional three billion middle-class people by 2030” (Simpson & Jewitt, 2019).

In conclusion, the World Food Energy Nexus is a crisis that we as future scientists need to develop social interventions, such as planting local food forests, in order to overcome a global imbalance in Maslow’s physiological base in the hierarchy of needs. There are a number of international researchers who are promoting the intervention of planting urban food forests or “edible urban forests” including the journal of Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, citing the “potential of urban and peri-urban forests as sources of food and the role that urban food forests can play in fostering sustainable cities” (Castro et al., 2018). The article defined urban food forests as “the intentional and strategic use of woody perennial food-producing species in edible urban landscapes to improve the sustainability and resilience of urban communities” (Castro et al., 2018). The article posited the intervention of an “edible landscaping practice” in cities where “urban food forestry involves a combination of agriculture, forestry, and agroforestry in urban areas to supply cities with food” (Castro et al., 2018). Castro et al. discussed how edible city gardens “provide urban dwellers with many benefits” suggesting evidence where urban food forests “motivate stewardship practices and give inhabitants opportunities to interact with nature and each other; enable the development of more resilient food systems and promote social and environmental sustainability; improve social cohesion and wellbeing and strengthen local communities; enhance biodiversity; and provide economic benefits for both municipalities and citizens” (2018).

As a family, my daughter and I have decided to plant a food forest in our backyard, and I would like to encourage you to do the same. Even in a small space, you can purchase an indoor aquaponic garden kit with LED lights that promote growing or use your balcony to create an edible garden with containers. I believe that food sustainability is an environmental resource dilemma that deserves further research and study, specifically how to engineer optimal weather conditions in harsh winter climates. I’ve seen solar panels for sale that heat roofs or are buried underground working alongside other geothermal heating alternatives, and I ask why this cannot be extrapolated to large-scale farming lands in colder climates. Through additional research, perhaps heating technologies via solar panels which melt snow can be identified to use as a water supply for crops in the winter months. I don’t have the answers, but I think there must be a way to solve this future resource dilemma through applied social psychology interventions. My thoughts are that we all need to think outside the box as future scientists to create solutions and interventions that help solve food scarcity issues here in the U.S. and globally. What are your thoughts?

References

Arizona Superbloom – Google Images. (2021). Google. https://www.google.com/search?q=arizona+superbloom 

Cash receipts by commodity State ranking. (2020). USDA. https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17844

Castro, J., Ostoić, S. K., Cariñanos, P., Fini, A., & Sitzia, T. (2018). “Edible” urban forests as part of inclusive, sustainable cities. Unasylva, 69(250), 59-65. http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/scholarly-journals/edible-urban-forests-as-part-inclusive/docview/2083654018/se-2?accountid=13158 

Climate Change In California Is Threatening The World’s Top Almond Producer. (2021, August 17). NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/08/17/1028452988/climate-change-california-drought-heat-almond-production

Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (2016). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

G.S. (2021, June 14). Mega-dairies, disappearing wells, and Arizona’s deepening water crisis. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/02/mega-dairies-disappearing-wells-and-arizonas-deepening-water-crisis

Hub, I. S. K. (2020). World Population to Reach 9.9 Billion by 2050 | News | SDG Knowledge Hub | IISD. International Institute for Sustainable Development. http://sdg.iisd.org/news/world-population-to-reach-9-9-billion-by-2050/

Ian James, The Arizona Republic. (2021, April 28). A “hidden crisis”: Millions of groundwater wells are at risk of running dry, scientists find. Arizona Republic. https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environment/2021/04/28/scientists-find-many-groundwater-wells-risk-running-dry/7347312002/

Mishra, A., Bruno, E., & Zilberman, D. (2021). Compound natural and human disasters: Managing drought and COVID-19 to sustain global agriculture and food sectors. Science of The Total Environment, 754, 142210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142210

Newman, J. (2021, July 5). Almonds Swept California Farms. Then the Water Ran Out. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/articles/almonds-swept-california-farms-then-the-water-ran-out-11625490000

Parker, L. E., McElrone, A. J., Ostoja, S. M., & Forrestel, E. J. (2020). Extreme heat effects on perennial crops and strategies for sustaining future production. Plant Science, 295, 110397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2019.110397

Population Reference Bureau. (2021, February 15). 2020 World Population Data Sheet. Population Reference Bureau. https://interactives.prb.org/2020-wpds/

Scardigno, A. (2020). New solutions to reduce water and energy consumption in crop production: A water–energy–food nexus perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 13, 11–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2019.09.007

Simpson, G. B., & Jewitt, G. P. W. (2019). The Development of the Water-Energy-Food Nexus as a Framework for Achieving Resource Security: A Review. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00008

 

create an entry — 2 Comments
14
Sep 21

Littering to Prevent Littering

I’m lucky enough to live in a beach community and, early each morning, I walk my dog along the beach before work. Although there are trash cans placed every 20 to 30 feet along the beach, there is always lots of litter – especially on Sunday and Monday mornings. On my walks, I watch as the maintenance crew works diligently each day, picking up all the litter from the day before. We’ve gotten to know each other quite well over the years and they tell me that they do this early in the morning to ensure that the beach is nice and clean before beachgoers come out for the day. I feel sorry for them that the task seems never-ending and that their beautiful work is always so unappreciated and gets messed up each day. I have often wondered what could be done to cause people to use the trash cans more and litter less. Who knew that the answer might be for the maintenance crew to not be quite so diligent in their litter collecting!

This week we learned that our individual choices and actions can have a huge impact on the physical environment and that, as individuals, we are often faced with social dilemmas that we have to make important choices about…even when we don’t realize how important our choices are (Gruman, Schneider & Coutts, 2017, p.354). I believe that littering is one of these social dilemmas. The short-term benefit to the litterer is immediate; they no longer have to carry the piece of trash around. The long-term cost to the environment is less tangible to the individual in the moment, less salient, making it relatively easy to choose to litter. However, there are long-term costs: when people leave litter on the beach or in the beach parking lot there is a high likelihood that the litter will end up in the ocean. Here it can affect dolphins, seals, and other marine life through entangling and trapping them or through them ingesting it. Litter in the ocean is also harmful to the environment. For instance, plastic trash is light and so floats on the surface of the ocean stopping the sunlight from getting into the ocean. Plastic also traps the sunlight which makes the surface of the ocean warmer. Both things will affect ocean ecosystems and our climate.

So, the question becomes; how to make non-littering more salient in the moment? Social norms are one of the big drivers of our behavior, telling us which behaviors are/aren’t acceptable (Gruman, Schneider & Coutts, 2017, p.81). As humans we are very motivated to be liked and approved of by others, we also use others’ behaviors to inform us of how we should behave in a situation. Focus Theory of Normative Conduct suggests that, in situations where several social norms are available at the same time, our behavior will most likely be influenced by the focal norm; the one which is most salient (Stok & de Ridder, 2019). It would follow, then, that, if the beach was strewn with litter, individuals would feel it acceptable to join in with this behavior. It would also make sense that, if the beach was kept pristine and did not have a single piece of litter on it, individuals would copy this behavior and not drop litter. Therefore, the work the maintenance crew does on the beach here each morning is valid, useful, and necessary.

Interestingly, in their studies, Reno, Cialdini, and Kallgren (1993) found that whilst a completely clear, litter-free area does lead to less littering, it is not as effective as when a social norm is made focal, drawing people’s attention to a non-littering norm. Their studies suggest that adopting one of the following behaviors would make beachgoers much less likely to litter. The first would be for the maintenance crew to leave a little litter on the beach during their early morning clean-up and only pick up that litter once beachgoers had arrived and could see them doing it. This is an injunctive norm; highlighting to beachgoers that littering is wrong and making this norm very salient in their minds. The second would be to tidy up the beach beautifully during their early morning clean-up and then, once beachgoers had arrived for the day, have someone deliberately drop a piece of trash somewhere prominent. This is a descriptive norm; it would draw attention to the fact that this action was unusual in this tidy environment, reminding people that most people don’t drop litter on the beach.

I found this really interesting and would love to help the maintenance crew out by suggesting they try one of these strategies. However, I can only imagine the looks of horror on their faces at the thought of not doing the best clean-up job possible, or – even worse – deliberately contributing to the littering problem. I’d also be happy to test it myself by going back down to the beach as beachgoers arrive and dropping a piece of trash on the crew’s beautiful sand. I think it would be a good intervention strategy but the personal cost to me – potentially losing my friendship with the crew – is too high. And so we come full circle; my individual choices and actions could potentially have a positive impact on the physical environment and yet every day I choose not to act because my personal reward for not acting is greater than my personal reward for acting.

References:

Gruman, J.A.,Schneider, F.W., & Coutts, L.A. (2017). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reno, R.R, Cialdini, R.B, & Kallgren, C.A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 110, 908.

Stok, F. M., & de Ridder, D. T. D. (2019). Chapter 7: The Focus Theory of Normative Conduct. In K. Sassenberg, & M. Vliek (Ed.). Social psychology in action: Evidence-based interventions from theory to practice (p. 96). essay, Springer.

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
14
Sep 21

What’s the…resource dilemma?

Resource dilemmas involve a conflict between the self-interests of a group and the welfare of the group or society as a whole. If a majority of individuals fail to restrain themselves, inadequate common resources such as water, air, and forests will be eventually depleted or completely polluted. These types of resource dilemmas will someday, quite possibly effect us all.

When you think of a resource dilemma in terms of environmental concerns, the problem is that the amount of available resources will hypothetically remain the same. If the population continues to grow, the need for more land to develop or more water to drink, with the alternative being to cut down more forest, or deplete more freshwater supplies, and then that is just another form of an environmental resource dilemma.

Lack of the proper knowledge about how others act (social uncertainty) and about the degree of depletion/pollution of a resource (environmental uncertainty) are still other factors which affect cooperation. (Bier, 1995) An environmental resource dilemma that poses a threat would be our oil consumption. Oil is a very slow reproducing resource that once used, cannot be used again. This is a staple of society because without oil we cannot drive our cars or operate our industries. Educating people on green ways to drive cars and produce energy will help society ween off the need for oil, creating solutions to this dilemma, providing that much needed cooperation, 

Even if egoism is constrained, how the individual is affected by collective consequences is still salient. (Bier, 1995) As such, the results are perceived to be uncertain, increasing uncertainty will make cooperation less consistent. These groups of individuals will not be willing to see in common. They will want to protect their own resources, not the resources of the majority as a whole, which could potentially develop into another resource dilemma. The objective of having the group cooperate to protect the environment and responsibly use common resources is simply a matter of life and death for all life on this planet.

Anders Biel, Tommy Gärling,The role of uncertainty in resource dilemmas, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Volume 15, Issue 3, 1995, Pages 221-233, ISSN 0272-4944, https:doi.org10.1016/0272-4944(95)90005-5.(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0272494495900055)

Uncategorized — 2 Comments
06
Feb 20

Poorly Constructed Buildings

The construction of safe and well-made homes is not just a social concern, but an environmental one as well. Building structures (such as improperly sealed air gaps, inefficient material choices, etc.) account for much of the inefficiency of buildings. This inefficiency is through the building’s use (primarily heat production) which accounts for much of its environmental impact (American Chemical Society, 2015). With this in mind, we discover that what was deconstructed in order to construct these buildings is less of a concern compared to how efficiently they run when in use.Using this knowledge we can shift our concerns to constructing more efficient buildings, and improve our techniques for doing so.

According to Ryan McNeill, the president of a solar energy company, the use of more efficient methods when constructing buildings begins with five steps: “sustainable site design..water quality and conservation..energy and environment..indoor environmental quality..materials and resources” (McNeill, n.d.). Using these tenets of construction we are able to address where current buildings potentially fail to provide an adequately efficient environment. Although the usage of already constructed buildings can be more efficient than constructing a new one, buildings that are already scheduled to be built can benefit from this kind of information. When faced with resource dilemmas related to household utilities, there can be difficulties on both sides of the issue, since citizens as well as legislators can be difficult to influence. For the purposes of influencing building construction, citizens may occasionally build new buildings, however the method of influencing legislation and regulations seems to be a more effective method of intervention as contractors often build many more houses than the average citizen.

The creation of legislation or regulations to be followed regarding the construction of new buildings and regular inspection of current buildings can have a large influence on the environmental efficiency of a community, as shown in small office and residential buildings in Switzerland. With these regulations in place, environmentalists’ largest concerns are often energy consumption. The use of water and other environmental resources also have an impact, however the use of various energy sources and efficiency levels are often the largest determinants of environmental impact (American Chemical Society, 2015). With a model society in mind, Switzerland in this instance, the creation of larger scale implementations are able to advance.By performing greater research on these issues in various countries we will be able to more accurately determine which pieces of legislature are most effective at solving different resource dilemmas regarding energy use.

Picture Sourced from Efficiency Vermont: https://www.efficiencyvermont.com/

Some notable influences on energy efficiency within homes can include rooftop structures, improved insulation, enhanced ventilation, building materials, motion sensing lights, building orientation, smart heating and cooling systems, and efficient lighting (National Geographic, 2017). The promotion of these factors within both current and in construction buildings can help decrease environmental impact. Aside from changing legislation, social promotion efforts can help influence current buildings to practice more energy efficient practices. Through our class readings, we discovered that influencing individuals to practice certain behaviors can result in negative practices. This was shown through a study in which individuals who were negatively judged for not recycling were then likely to recycle even less (Gruman et al, 2017). With this in mind, any interventions we seek to perform should be carefully evaluated for their effects.

Using the knowledge we have gained about the environmental impact of our homes, there are many paths to follow in regards to decreasing our environmental impact. Individually we can become more aware of our energy usage within our homes, possibly adopting some of the energy efficiency recommendations by National Geographic. On a larger scale, the promotion of energy efficient legislation as well as political leaders who will promote such causes can be one of our greatest tools for enacting change. By holding these individuals responsible, we can create communities that are built with quality in mind over frugality. Noticing it as a hotspot for energy usage, the adoption of more energy efficient building construction techniques could be one of the largest impacts we could have on climate change, and is an issue that should be attended to more often.

 

Resources

American Chemical Society. (2015). Environmental Impact of Buildings: What Matters. Retrieved from https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/acs.est.5b01735
Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., and Coutts, L. M. (Eds.) (2017). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1-4833-6973-0
National Geographic. (2017). Green Buildings Could Save Our Cities. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/urban-expeditions/green-buildings/benefits-of-green-buildings-human-health-economics-environment/
Ryan McNeill. (n.d.). Green Buildings vs. Non-Green Buildings. Retrieved from https://www.buildings.com/buzz/buildings-buzz/entryid/442/green-buildings-vs-non-green-buildings
Uncategorized — 5 Comments
06
Feb 20

IS REUSING THE NEW RECYCLING?

When we come across recycling, our minds tend to think that we are making the right choice for our planet Earth. Companies are not only designing plastic to be difficult or impossible to recycle, but the overwhelming flood of new plastic into the market prevents any chance of recycling keeping up. It turns out that that recycling does not have as many benefits for the environment as it seems. Recycling can also be financially costly to local governments. Besides, the most recycled materials end up getting shipped overseas to be processed, burning fossil fuels along the way. How to successfully help the environment? The real answer to the question is that the only way to solve the world’s plastic pollution crisis is to simply make less plastic.

There is a difference between things being recyclable and actually being recycled. (Westervelt, 2012) Unfortunately, not everything that’s “recyclable” actually gets recycled. Learning how to reduce, reuse, and recycle can help us, the community, and the environment by saving money, energy, and natural resources. Reduction and reuse are the most effective ways to preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and save money. The following are the advantages of reducing and reusing: Prevents pollution caused by reducing the need to harvest new raw materials., Saves energy., Reduces greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global climate change., It helps sustain the environment for future generations., Saves money., Reduces the amount of waste that will need to be recycled or sent to landfills and incinerators., Allows products to be used to their fullest extent. (www.epa.gov)

Some ideas that can help people to reduce and reuse is to buy used. For example, one can find everything from clothes to building materials. Often, used items are less expensive and just as good as new. Look for products that use less packaging. Buying in bulk, for example, can reduce packaging and save money. When manufacturers make their products with less packaging, they use less raw material by reducing waste and costs. These extra savings can be passed along to the consumers. Look for items that can be reused; the little things can add up. For example, one can bring their own silverware and cup to work, rather than to use disposable items. Maintain and repair products, like clothing, tires, and appliances, so that they will not have to be thrown out and replaced as frequently. Borrow, rent, or share items that are used infrequently, like party decorations, tools, or furniture. Last but not least, bring reusable bags/boxes to the store and avoid using excessive amounts of plastic bags.

Prevent usable goods from going into landfills by donating clothes, shoes, furniture. There is an old saying that goes by “One person’s trash is another person’s treasure.” Recycling benefits not only the environment but also those who are in need. The most effective way to reduce waste is not to create it in the first place.

 

Reducing and Reusing Basics. (2019, November 25). Retrieved February 6, 2020, from https://www.epa.gov/recycle/reducing-and-reusing-basics

Can Recycling Be Bad for the Environment? (2012, April 25). Retrieved February 6, 2020, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/amywestervelt/2012/04/25/can-recycling-be-bad-for-the-environment/#42a7a57c3bec

Recycling is Not Enough. (2018, January 30). Retrieved February 6, 2020, from https://www.no-burn.org/recyclingisnotenough/

Uncategorized — No Comments
22
Sep 19

Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming, Without the Politics

Our planet is getting hotter, temperatures are hitting record highs year over year. Pollen counts are increasing exponentially due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and sea levels are rising to such an extent that Indonesia is changing its capital from Jakarta because the city is expected to drop off into the ocean and sink.

This is a global problem that requires a global response. However, the influencers, policy makers and world leaders are so entrenched in ideological warfare that it has become impossible to build consensus on solutions.

In today’s article, I will provide an overview of what the complexities of this problem look like, what is being done by world leaders that exacerbates the problems and what solutions have actually been implemented that are making a positive difference.

Stop Denying Climate Change

One of the first points of conflict that must end is the denial of climate change. Although the science isn’t exact on just what the causes are or who is responsible, there can be no refutation of its effects. When US Senators bring snowballs into the Senate and try to use it to refute climate change, they are being hyperbolic and unhelpful.

Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, the importance of having a healthy environment is not up for debate. If you’re a nature lover that appreciates a good fishing or hunting trip or a nature lover who enjoys peaceful hikes through the woods, a vibrant and healthy outdoors is crucial to every human’s health and well being.

There Are More Trees Today

Despite woes and lamentations about the problem of deforestation, there are actually more trees today than there were thirty five years ago. This isn’t to suggest that society shouldn’t be concerned about deforestation, but it does seriously imply that one of the root causes of climate change is not the destruction of the rain forest. In fact, the increase in the number of trees globally actually makes sense as an effect of climate change. As more carbon dioxide is produced and released into the atmosphere, more trees are able to “eat” – think of it like a giant, all you can eat buffet for trees. This surplus of food supply also means that trees are more fertile, releasing more pollen and thus creating more trees. It’s the circle of life.

Return of CFC’s

In 2019 it was discovered that CFC’s (Chlorofluorocarbons) were once again being released into earth’s atmosphere, despite being banned by the Montreal Protocol of 1987, which saw the international community agree to ban CFC’s and have them completely eliminated by 2020. Unfortunately, due to the widespread agreement, scientists became less vigilant in there policing of the use of CFC’s. Until it was discovered that China was the culprit, releases tonnes of the highly dangerous chemical into the atmosphere and contributing to a new hole in the ozone layer.

This illustrates one of the dangers of building widespread consensus. Complacency becomes the norm as the collective mind of the global society pats themselves on the back and says, “job well done”.

Too Many People

One of the loudest arguments in favor of slowing climate change is that humans need to stop reproducing. The claim is that population is wildly out of control and with over seven billion people on the planet, the earth simply cannot handle that much human life.

This argument is problematic. First, overpopulation is not an issue in modern Western countries such as the United States, Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, Continental Europe and Australia. Census numbers from these countries illustrate a bigger socioeconomic problem. There are too many older people in these countries and not enough young people being born to support the structures of the society.

Over population is a significant problem in places such as India, China, parts of Africa and even areas of the Middle East. Large families are a normal part of their respective cultures. In fact, only recently did China end it’s “one child per family” policy because it was finally seeing the destructive effects of this policy on their society.

The End of Hubris

The challenges of overpopulation are real in certain parts of the world. Modern Western societies must be extremely careful of their own Hubris when it comes to addressing this specific concern. Although it may be in the best interest of the global community to see a slowing down of population growth in India, the change in culture required cannot be applied by an outside influence. This is antithetical to Western values of Freedom and Liberty – governments do not have the right to legislate the way people think.

It is incredibly arrogant for Western policy makers and official voices on climate change to point accusing fingers at countries where overpopulation may be a significant problem. In addition, it is just as dangerous for these same people to turn their accusations inward at the people they stand for. Attempting to adopt population controls breaches one of the fundamental rights of a human being – the right to control his or her own body. Further, if rhetoric about population control is focused on a society that is underpopulated, then this will only serve to bring more damage to the social fabric.

Conclusion:

Hubris and arrogance also rear their ugly heads in the underlying ideology on stopping climate change. It is a mistake to believe that nature, the planet, wildlife, etc. will cease to exist because of the actions of human beings. We are not that powerful. Nature will continue, with or without humans.

Therefore, instead of framing the climate change debate as one of “save the planet”, a more accurate and impactful message would likely be “don’t commit suicide” – because ultimately, the only thing that will become extinct as a result of human caused climate change, is humans.

Doing more to prevent global warming, to lower green house gas emissions and to bring sea levels back to a normal level requires a massive amount of time, energy and resources. Without consensus and commitment from everyone concerned on how to move forward, limiting or stopping climate change is about as tenable as achieving world peace.

Instead, it is once again the power of the individual to affect change that will bring positive results to combat climate change. Such is the case with Dutch teenager and activist, Boyan Slat. Seven years ago he formulated a vision to rid the oceans of plastic, a very specific and measurable goal. Today, his vision is becoming realty as his invention is being used to tackle the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

It is these types of initiatives, not international accords, coercive manipulation and hysterical rhetoric that will provide the best outcomes in the war with a warming planet.

create an entry — 1 Comment
03
Feb 19

Life isn’t plastic, we need to get enthusiastic

 

Since its introduction in the 1950’s, it is “estimate[d] that 8300 million metric tons (Mt) of virgin plastics have been produced to date. As of 2015, approximately 6300 Mt of plastic waste had been generated, around 9% of which had been recycled, 12% was incinerated, and 79% was accumulated in landfills or the natural environment” (Geyer, Jambeck, & Law, 2017). These are staggering numbers to absorb, and it is apparent that this trend of plastic generation will have devastating environmental effects.

“The amount of plastic produced in a year is roughly the same as the entire weight of humanity” (Geyer et al., 2017).This translates to “91% of plastic waste isn’t being recycled. And since most plastics don’t biodegrade in any meaningful sense, all that plastic waste could exist for hundreds or even thousands of years” (Geyer et al., 2017). According to research, “plastic takes more than 400 years to degrade, so most of it still exists in some form” (National Geographic, & Parker, 2018). Meaning, the plastic we make and “toss away” today will remain here long after our children’s children are gone. “Half of all plastic manufactured becomes trash in less than a year” (National Geographic et al., 2018).

“Worldwide, a trillion single-use plastic bags are used each year, nearly 2 million each minute” (Earth Policy Institute, & Larson, 2014). Nearly 100 billion plastic bags are used by Americans every year and tied together, they would reach around the Earth’s equator 1,330 times. In an effort to combat the accumulation of plastics, many cities and countries now either ban the sale of plastic bags in stores or charge a nominal fee for the use of the bags; a fee that is shared between the store and environmental cleanup corporations. While this is a step in the right direction, it still begs the question about what lasting effects plastic production will have on our environment currently as well as for the generations to come.

Plastics are effectively threatening our oceans and marine life. One prediction states “that by mid-century, the oceans will contain more plastic waste than fish, ton for ton, and this has become one of the most-quoted statistics and a rallying cry to do something about it” (National Geographic et al., 2018).

“Recycling in the U.S. has remained at nine percent since 2012. The United States ranks behind Europe (30 percent) and China (25 percent) in recycling, the study found” (National Geographic et al., 2018). Sadly, our environmental regulations are far behind many other parts of the world.

“The rapid acceleration of plastic manufacturing, which so far has doubled roughly every 15 years, has outpaced nearly every other man-made material. And, it is unlike virtually every other material. Half of all steel produced, for example, is used in construction, with a decades-long lifespan” (National Geographic et al., 2018). An intervention on plastics production is imminent, the question is whether the population at large decides to participate in the conversation before it becomes a very real crisis.

The time to fix these issues is now. “We as a society need to consider whether it’s worth trading off some convenience for a clean, healthy environment” (National Geographic et al., 2018). Taking action as a consumer is one tangible step in the right direction. Using reusable bottles or bringing reusable bags to the grocery store are individual choices that can make a big difference. Sharing information with others and helping influence the community around you can help alter the marketability of plastics which in turn will ensure change. If the choices of consumers show that plastic mass production is no longer profitable, companies are bound to follow suit and will have to find better, more sustainable options to get their products on the market.

Resources:

Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017, July 01). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1700782

Earth Policy Institute, & Larson, J. (2014, October 16). Plastic Bags Fact Sheet. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from http://www.earth-policy.org/press_room/C68/plastic_bags_fact_sheet

National Geographic, & Parker, L. (2018, December 20). A whopping 91% of plastic isn’t recycled. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/plastic-produced-recycling-waste-ocean-trash-debris-environment/

create an entry — 3 Comments
02
Feb 19

The Tragedy of the Commons

The tragedy of the commons is a resource dilemma concept introduced by a prominent 19th century economist named William Lloyd. In his allegory, he discussed the fact that in our world where resources are finite, people will consume these resources in a self-interested manner which will eventually lead to their depletion (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). We can look at history to see that, in certain situations, this theory holds true and we will see that economic principles may provide a potential remedy for this problem.

For a resource dilemma example, we will consider water rights to a certain creek in Montana. Rob Harmon gave a thought-provoking TEDxRainier Talk in 2010, entitled Blue is the New Green: Water Footprints, on the Prickly Pear Creek and how people with senior water usage rights used their allotments (even when they did not need the water) solely to maintain their rights. This consumption in a self-interested manner led to the complete drying up of the entire creek. We can also see tragedy of the commons when we consider the over-fishing of so many species in our oceans, the irresponsible and extravagant use of clean water sources, excessive deforestation, etc. This is a problem that economists and environmental psychologists are both are struggling to solve.

These examples are evidence that the choices of a few can affect the welfare of many. Economists view these types of problems as negative externalities. Negative externalities are the spill-over effects (usually seen as costs to a third party) that are not accounted for in the original transactions of production or consumption. These negative externalities are treated as market failures by environmental economists; too much of a good is being produced due to the fact that its full cost is not being accounted for (Callan & Thomas, 2013).

One solution for this type of market failure was proposed by Ronald Coase in 1960. In his paper “The Problem of Social Cost” he hypothesized that the assignment of property rights would bring the market back into equilibrium. According to Coase, it does not matter who is assigned the property rights, whether it’s the party we feel is harmed or the one doing the harming (1960). To briefly explain the Coase Theorem, we will use the problem of air pollution.

For this example, the citizens who live around an oil refinery will be assigned the property rights to the air in their town. If the citizens own the rights to a public good, such as clean air, then the refinery will have to pay them in order to pollute that air. Due to this extra cost, refined oil will become more expensive, and as a result the demand for it will decrease. This will in turn cause a reduction in the air pollution. This is how property rights can bring the market back into equilibrium.

In certain situations, I think that this concept could help environmental psychologists mitigate resource dilemmas such as the tragedy of commons and improve the manner in which people consume resources. Perhaps an intervention could be designed that would increase participants’ feelings of ownership of the environment. This intervention could utilize cognitive dissonance in the same manner that Dickerson, Thibodeau, Aronson, and Miller did in 1992 to encourage water conservation.

First, the intervention would establish the understanding that the Earth belongs to everyone which translates to the participants assuming individual ownership of the Earth. This relates to the Coase Theorem as it would be assigning conceptual property rights to the participants. The next step would be to ask participants how they take care of their most valuable possessions, especially those that cannot be replaced. Finally, feelings of hypocrisy would be induced when participants are made aware of the disparity between how they choose to treat their belongings in contrast with how they misuse our Earth and its finite natural resources. The intended result would be that participants choose to use natural resources in a more conscientious and sustainable way. Perhaps if we implemented an intervention in this manner, combining environmental economic and social psychological principles, the tragedy of the commons (market failure) would become a problem of the past.

 

References:

Callan, S. J., Thomas, J. M. (2013). Environmental economics & management: Theory, policy and applications (6th ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. The Journal of Law & Economics, 3, 1-44.  

Dickerson, C.A., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E., & Miller, D. (1992). Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 841-854.

Harmon, R. (2010, December 10). Blue is the new green: Water footprints [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV3ZjORGwoI

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

create an entry — 1 Comment
01
Feb 19

The Beef with Beef

If there’s one thing a Californian knows, it’s that there’s never enough water. For a state that is often lauded as a tourist destination — with the ability to surf and ski in one day being a major talking point for many a college trying to lure in unaware out-of-staters — it spends much of its time in drought or, as a result, on fire. The water shortage is what fuels the condescending letters from the water district about how much water you’re likely wasting and is what drives people to replace their front lawn with AstroTurf, scruffy native plants, and gravel, which, in my opinion, is a bridge too far. I mean, sure, it saves water and MWD will pay you to rip out your lawn and ruin your home’s curb appeal but… at what cost? I don’t care how many rock cairns and cactuses you use to try and spruce it up, walking around some neighborhoods still makes me feel like I’m the Curiosity rover exploring Mars.

From 2012 to 2016, California experienced its worst drought in over one thousand years (Xiao et al., 2017). It “caused billions of dollars in economic losses, killed millions of forest trees, brought several fish species closer to extinction, and caused inconvenience and some expense to millions of households and businesses” (Lund, Medellin-Azuara, Durand, & Stone, 2018, par. 1). It was, in short, a real bummer. During this time, citizens experienced a call to action to conserve water. They were encouraged to limit how often they watered their lawns or washed their cars and restrictions were placed on water runoff and overspray, hosing down driveways, and watering within two days after rain (Western Municipal Water District, n.d.). There was, however, one potential citizen action which was completely overlooked and largely went undiscussed. That is the consumption of beef. In California, it takes approximately 1621 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef, making it an important topic in the discussion about water conservation (Rijsberman, 2005).

While protein is an essential part of the human diet, Schlink, Nguyen, and Viljoen (2010) found that beef was significantly less water efficient than any other protein source they studied, including other animal proteins like eggs and poultry and plant proteins like soybeans. In fact, the beef industry accounts for 33% of the global water footprint of farm animal production, a number which is one and a half times higher than that of pigs and three times higher than that of broiler chickens (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2012). One of the primary reasons for this disparity is the amount of feed — which requires water to be grown — that beef cattle consume. For instance, beef cattle require four times more feed than pigs and eleven times more than broiler chickens for every pound of meat produced (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2012). However, to complicate things a bit, the use of concentrate feed in the chicken and pork industries does often result in a larger, negative impact on groundwater consumption and water pollution (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2012). While the beef industry uses, by far, the most water, that does not mean that other farm animal industries do not also have issues that they need to address.

It’s funny to me that, only a couple of years ago, the water districts, politicians, and the news industry were busy making me and other Californians feel bad about watering our lawns and washing our hair, and no one was talking about beef and the burden that a meat-based diet places on water scarcity. As shown by Hoekstra (2010), the shift from a meat-based diet to a largely vegetarian one could reduce an industrialized society’s water footprint by 36% (as cited in Gerbens-Leenes, Mekonnen, & Hoekstra, 2013). Additionally, Chapagain and James (2011) found that, for UK citizens, food waste accounts for 6% of their total water footprint (as cited in Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2013). Perhaps, as with many other industries like pharmaceuticals and tobacco, money is being placed above the well-being of both our citizens and our planet.

In the end, what this means is that, as usual, it really comes down to the individual to make a difference. First and foremost, it’s important to educate yourself and others on the realities of the beef industry. The importance of “educational campaigns lies in their priming ability; […] they get people ready to make a change rather than actually [getting] them to change” (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 307). From what I can tell, many people are unaware of the beef industry’s large water footprint and circulating this knowledge can help prime people to change. From there, it becomes obvious that by simply reducing the amount of beef you consume or waste and replacing it with other animal or plant sources of protein, you, as an individual, can contribute to the water conservation effort. To be clear, this doesn’t mean that if you like to enjoy a hamburger now and again that you’re a bad person. (Well, you might be, I don’t know, but it’s not because of the burger.) It simply means that if everyone made a concerted effort to reduce their beef consumption, we could save a lot of water. On a larger scale, implementing interventions to reduce both the waste and consumption of beef would be very beneficial. For example, students would be a great group to target for change. By designing programs that utilize powerful motivators of change like cognitive dissonance, an antecedent strategy, or comparative feedback, a consequence strategy, the government and schools could help do their part to encourage people to limit their consumption of beef (Dickerson, Thibodeau, Aronson, & Miller, 1992; Schneider et al., 2012; Siero, Bakker, Dekker, & van den Burg, 1996). Besides, even if you don’t care about water conservation, it’s been recently shown that muscle meat cooked at high temperatures produces carcinogenic chemicals, so it’s probably best to skip that burger anyway (National Cancer Institute, 2017).

References

Dickerson, C.A., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E., & Miller, D. (1992). Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22. 841-854.

Gerbens-Leenes, P., Mekonnen, M., & Hoekstra, A. (2013). The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparative study in different countries and production systems. Water Resources and Industry,1-2, 25-36. doi:10.1016/j.wri.2013.03.001 

Lund, J. R., Dist.M.ASCE, Medellin-Azuara, J., M.ASCE, Durand, J., & Stone, K. (2018). Lessons from California’s 2012-2016 drough. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management,144(10). doi:https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000984

Mekonnen, M., & Hoekstra, A. (2012). A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products. Ecosystems, 15(3), 401-415. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/stable/41507787

National Cancer Institute. (2017, July 11). Chemicals in meat cooked at high temperatures and cancer risk. Retrieved from https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet

Rijsberman, F. R. (2006). Water scarcity: Fact or fiction? Agricultural Water
Management,80(1-3), 5-22. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2005.07.001

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2017). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Schlink, A. C., Nguyen, M. L., & Viljoen, G. J. (2010). Water requirements for livestock production: A global perspective. Revue Scientifique Et Technique (International Office of Epizootics), 29(3), 603-619.

Siero, F.W., Bakker, A.B., Dekker, G.B., & van den Burg, M.T.C. (1996). Changing organizational energy consumption behaviour through comparative feedback. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16. 235-246. 

Western Municipal Water District. (n.d.). Water use regulations & restrictions. Retrieved from https://www.wmwd.com/208/Water-Use-Regulations-Restrictions 

Xiao, M., Koppa, A., Mekonnen, Z., Pagán, B. R., Zhan, S., Cao, Q., . . . Lettenmaier, D. P. (2017). How much groundwater did Californias Central Valley lose during the 2012-2016 drought? Geophysical Research Letters,44(10), 4872-4879. doi:10.1002/2017gl073333

 

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
16
Sep 18

Habitat Destruction

The loss of habitats is something that we are all aware of, but maybe don’t discuss as often. I love animals more than humans sometimes because we have changed the planet in so many ways and are responsible for the extinction of many species, which is pretty shameful. Habitat destruction should be discussed even more than it already is and some serious changes need to occur right now before we destroy everything completely. One way to do so is to educate everyone on what is exactly going on and motivate people to participate in making a change.

We have done many things that have been harmful to animals and have caused extinctions. Things such as abusing animals, using them as entertainment instead of letting them live in their natural habitats, and using their skin for fashion. Another terrible thing that has caused extinction is habitat destruction. The world’s forests, swamps, and lakes are disappearing because humans are building more housing, more roads, more pipelines, etc (Evans, 2011). According to EarthTimes, “Human activity is responsible for the loss of around half of the forests that once covered the Earth. Although these can recover and can even be sustainably harvested, their rate of loss is about ten times higher than the rate of regrowth” (Evans, 2011). Loss of these habitats also means the loss of other living species. For example, habitat destruction will be responsible for the extinction of 120 living primate species within the next ten to twenty years (Evans, 2011). The animals that will probably be affected more are the bigger ones such as tigers, mountain gorillas, pandas and lions because they require a bigger area of land for a healthy living and breeding population (Evans, 2011).

“Habitat loss is also a huge problem in the marine environment. Destructive fishing, using deep trawlers and dynamiting coral reefs destroy entire ecosystems. Coastal habitats are destroyed when land is drained for development. Excess nutrients from fertilizers or domestic sewage flow into the sea, causing harmful algae to form, blocking out the sunlight and depleting the water of oxygen” (Evans, 2011). The marine environment is another habitat that needs to be protected more because it’s also a great resource for humans. If the sea isn’t taken care of, then it can’t take care of us as well. For example, fish and water. We need fish because it’s beneficial to our health and we need the water. What happens when all of that is eventually destroyed?

There is also another environmental issue that is contributing to the one discussed here and that’s climate change. Climate change will cause many habitats to become inhospitable. For example, “A study in Nature indicated that within the next 50 years a quarter of the world’s land animals and plants could become extinct. This is around a million species”  (Evans, 2011).

Human intervention is a cause for this habitat destruction and needs to be taken more seriously. Right now the only thing that can be done is educate those around us on how to be more responsible for our environment. We need to be aware of what we can do in order to save more animals from extinction and we can start by taking care of their habitats. When you take care of the habitats, then more species will be saved over time. By destroying everything, we will end up causing the predicted extinctions and then what? Can you imagine a world with destroyed habitats and not seeing specific animals anymore such as lions, tigers, and gorillas? Personally, I can’t imagine a world like that and I don’t want to. We need to take responsibility and educate ourselves on how we can change our destructive ways.

 

References

Evans, M. (2011, May 10). Habitat Loss and Degradation. Retrieved from http://www.earthtimes.org/encyclopaedia/environmental-issues/habitat-loss-degradation/

 

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
16
Sep 18

Stately Sustainability

 

While I may consider it to be the best atmosphere in the whole country, others fear the cheers and jeers of the over 107,000 white-clad diehards screaming their lungs out on any given football Saturday. And no matter which side one may fall on, there is little doubt that Penn State’s Beaver Stadium provides a raucous and unique environment for college athletics, one that has drawn millions of people to central Pennsylvania over the years.

But in speaking about environments, there are many who are also concerned about how fan behavior not only generates an exciting sports scene but can also negatively affect the Earth. Do alumni waste an exorbitant amount of gas making their trips back to Happy Valley during football weekends? Is too much electricity consumed to turn the borough of State College into a bustling city in anticipation for the big game? Can anything be done to balance good times and good practices? A discussion of intervention strategy on individual’s behaviors, along with some current efforts by the Penn State community, may provide perspective in to what actions can be taken to promote future environmental sustainability.

One approach to shaping desired outcomes amongst society is the use of antecedent strategies during interventions. These schemes promote identifying the factors that cause behavioral issues, and then using goals, educational tools, and information to target the negative behavior before it has been committed (Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts, 2012). These devices “prime” the subject to make the necessary changes identified when formulating a solution to a problem, but do not necessarily require that the actual change takes place (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 307). Essentially, a proactive approach to eliminating adverse influences before a problem arises.

Here is an example for my football fans out there. Let us say that a certain football coach may hope to prepare his Nittany Lions to beat the University of Illinois next week but is concerned about his players losing focus as they look a week ahead to the Ohio State matchup. During the time prior to this week’s game, he may take to Twitter and repeatedly use the term “Illinois” to remind his team of where their concentration and goals should lie. Next, he will instruct the coaching staff to review film of only the Illini football team’s games and then also directs them to not use the words “Ohio” or “Buckeyes” all week. The entire team is provided with a scouting report on only Illinois’ strengths and weaknesses from the coaches, and there is no mention of any schools that may be located in a bordering state. In removing some the interfering elements, the team dedicates itself to focus solely on winning at Illinois. Likewise, similar interventional avenues can also be used to persuade others not to commit environmentally-hazardous behaviors.

With an overabundance of trash left after football games, Penn State is leading an effort to determine how to promote less waste by visitors to Beaver Stadium. In conjunction with the university’s Sustainability Institute, Tailgate Ambassadors have descended upon the stadium in recent years with the goal of promoting efficient recycling practices at football games (Tailgate, 2018). To intercept poor habits before they occur, these student volunteers spread out amongst the tailgating lots during the season, interacting with fans and providing educational information about how and where to dispose of waste. Fans are encouraged to presort their recyclable cans and bottles in to blue bags, and other waste is disposed of in similar clear containers. During just one home game against Michigan last season, Tailgate Ambassadors communicated with 80,000 fans, handing out 3,600 bags, and capturing 62,000 pounds of recycling (Tailgate, 2018). In using the antecedent strategies of setting goals and providing education and information before the problem arises, Penn State students are tackling the issue of environmentally-damaging behaviors.

Interventions program can be implemented to address the different factors associated with changing individual’s behaviors, as evident by organized volunteer initiatives at Penn State. Based on their adaptation in a variety of situations, antecedent strategies are currently being invoked by the university’s Sustainability Institute in providing student Tailgate Ambassadors who make a considerable difference in recycling efforts at Beaver Stadium. Prior to the disposal of trash, these volunteers educate fans about the correct methods for managing recyclables and waste, and in doing so, make a positive impact on the environment.

What else can be done to make the Penn State football experience an environmentally-sustainable one. Can all of those used vinyl pom-poms be repurposed into something more beneficial? Are concession stands currently operating at 100% compliance in using recycled foodservice plates and cutlery? Are there options for more energy efficient stadium lights? It remains an important endeavor to continue to seek new ways to make Penn State not only a great football atmosphere, but an environmentally-friendly one as well. Something everyone can cheer about!

References:

Schneider, F.W., Gruman, J.A., & Coutts, L.A. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tailgate Ambassadors. (2018). Retrieved September 13, 2018, from https://www.pennstatecsl.com/tailgate-ambassadors.html

Uncategorized — No Comments
14
Sep 18

Feel the Heat

Have you been feeling the heat? Global warming has become a serious issue in our society. Even when we have proof all around us, many still do not take this issue seriously. There is a tremendous amount of scientific research that backs up the concerns. I will be discussing some data on global warming and the effects that we see and experience on a daily basis. It is crucial for the earth population to do something about this issue, because it will one day be a catastrophic global disaster.

So, what exactly cause global warming? Well according to climate scientists many believe is due to the greenhouse effect. (Climate change causes 2018) What this means is that there is an over production of gasses that go into the atmosphere and stops heat from escaping. There are five main gasses and they are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons. (Climate change causes 2018) With the gases being released and blocking heat from leaving our atmosphere it creates extreme weather.

There has been scientific documentation of observation that show extreme precipitation levels and temperature changes. (Easterling 2000) With extreme weather changes this includes excessive heat, cold, and rain it can be very dangerous to humans, animal, and our environment. Recently I first hand experienced a huge wild fire here in California. The Thomas fire was outside my window for weeks. The whole mountain range was on fire, with the combination of dried shrubbery and the winds plus the heat it was simply furling the fire. This wild fire was an intense fast-moving fire and my county was hit hard. With global warming it brings higher sea levels, large wild fires, extreme storms and heat. (Gobal Warming)

California in particular has had a rough fire season. With record droughts and extreme temperature, it has become a real health issue. Some preventative measures everyone can start doing are being vocal about the issue, use renewable energy, weatherize your home, reduce water consumption and recycle. (Denchak 2018)

Ultimately, we as a population need to be responsible and take action. The extreme weather patterns will continue unless we begin to change. Reducing greenhouse gasses should be the number one priority. We have one earth and it is our home, but we need everyone to help if we want to make a difference.

 

Climate change causes: A blanket around the Earth. (2018, August 08). Retrieved from https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Denchak, M. (2018, September 10). How You Can Stop Global Warming. Retrieved September 14, 2018, from https://www.nrdc.org/stories/how-you-can-stop-global-warming

Easterling, D. R., Meehl, G. A., Parmesan, C., Changnon, S. A., & al, e. (2000). Climate extremes: Observations, modeling, and impacts. Science, 289(5487), 2068-74. Retrieved from http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docview/213582668?accountid=13158

Global Warming. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming#.W5x0VlJRdTY

 

Uncategorized — 4 Comments
12
Sep 18

A Little Garbage Never Hurt Anyone

While reading through Chapter 13, I tried to think of a good resource dilemma that the world is facing today. As defined in the book, a resource dilemma involves a resource that is limited or finite but used as if it is unlimited and replenish-able (water, oil, coal, etc). Naturally I was able to think of many resource dilemmas involving water, but I was hoping to come up with something that was a little less common. This made me think of the movie Wall-E. I remember watching this movie for the first time and falling in love with the precious robot with the big heart. But once you get past the adorable aspects of the movie, you realize that the core issue was mankind’s tendency to waste and waste until there is no space left to deposit garbage. While space isn’t the same kind of resource as water or oil, it is still limited and abused.

A few months ago I watched a video of a girl that did a “30 Days No Waste” challenge. She literally couldn’t create waste of any kind for an entire month. She bought only fresh fruits, she created a compost bin with worms to manage her actually compost needs, she didn’t use plastic goods of any kind, and so on. At the end of the month she had one mason jar of “waste” to her name. I remember thinking while watching the video how difficult that would be if I tried it. Then I thought, why is it so difficult to imagine not wasting hundreds or possibly thousands of dollars worth of material every month? Why is it that mankind believes that we have unlimited space on this planet and that no matter how much waste we create, there will always be a place for it?

As the population continues to grow, so will the waste that we create and the space (or resource) we have for it will continue to decrease. If we don’t actively work as individuals and communities to lessen the amount of waste created, we will soon be overrun by garbage just like Wall-E, but won’t have giant spaceships to escape in. I think that recycling, reusable bags, and even composting can help tremendously if people are educated and the proper interventions are implemented.

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
04
Feb 18

Taking Care of Ourselves and the Commons.

The concept of environmental psychology isn’t necessarily what everyone may think it is.  Environmental psychology is involved in many factors, but put most broadly, it addresses how persons interact with their environment and seeks to improve them.  While this week’s chapter may open with an example of an eco-terrorist and his actions, environmental psychology is also involved in how buildings are laid out and the overall functionality of them.

Without even realizing it the concept of environmental psychology is something that I have practicing for most of my adult life.  It’s concepts of social design and applying solutions to resource dilemmas are pretty much a life philosophy for me.  I’ve always held the viewpoint that it is important for people to be able to sustain themselves to some degree in order to lessen the impact on the overall environment around us.  The described concept of the commons dilemma is one that, until this week, I’ve never formally read but have given thought too.  The commons dilemma addresses the issue of a what happens when a small, finite resource, is abused, overcrowded, or ill kept, and the eventual dissolution and failure of that resource resulting in the loss of those relying on it (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, 2012).  I think that it is important to be able to contribute to our own environment around us and use it effectively in order to maximize its usage through minimum impact.

As such, when I purchased my house, I sought out a location that wasn’t in a city, I’ve never been a fan of them, and would allow me to pursue my interests.  The biggest way I spend my free time in the summer is through blacksmithing and by pursuing this hobby I am able to provide solutions for problems around the house and for my neighbors that might otherwise be expensive, prohibitive, or wasteful to fix through modern methods.  The unspoken mindset of the blacksmith is to never throw anything away, that there is a use for everything at some point in time.

Tending a small garden to grow my favorite vegetables, ensuring that the space in all the rooms of my house are being effectively used, performing home improvement projects myself, as well as conducting vehicle maintenance, are all ways I seek to expand my skills, lessen impact and demand on the environment, and even save money.

Current trends in society are also leaning towards this viewpoint of self-sufficiency as well.  Due to increased awareness of the importance of bees, and the effects of pesticide and colony collapse disorder, backyard beekeeping is increasing in popularity (Woodward, 2018).  Another similar area of interest is in the raising of backyard chickens (Block, 2018).  The knowledge of population demand, increase and changes in production methods, and prevalence of modification factors such as use of antibiotics, has lead people to seek out the alternative of natural homegrown eggs, chickens, and honey.  While the motives may vary, to have fresh eggs cheaply, or eggs produced in a natural environment, or to have honey that comes from known sources, there is a large amount of social support for these areas of interest.

These new trends, however, are not without their risks.  Being ill prepared for the responsibilities of raising these animals and unaware of the risks that may be involved can lead to unfortunate effects.  Increase exposure to salmonella has been linked with the increased trend of raising backyard chickens, for example (Pattani, 2017).  But there are those, like me, that believe that the benefits outweigh the risks and that it helps to be as well informed and prepared as possible.

 

References

Block, B. (2018). U.S City Dwellers Flock to Raising Chickens. Worldwatch Institute.  Retrieved from http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5900.

Schneider, F.W, Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012).  Applied Psychology (2nd ed.).  Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Pattani, A. (2017). Backyard Chickens Carry a Hidden Risk: Salmonella.  New York Times.  Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/health/backyard-chickens-carry-a-hidden-risk-salmonella.html.

Woodward, S. (2018). Unique and Emerging Beekeeping Trends. Perfect Bee.  Retrieved from https://www.perfectbee.com/blog/unique-and-emerging-beekeeping-trends/

Uncategorized — 3 Comments
16
Sep 17

Using Cognitive Dissonance Without Knowing It: How Pictures of Animals Increased Recycling

My family has always believed in the importance of recycling in order to reduce waste and conserve our natural resources.  Growing up, both my sister and I assumed that most people shared these beliefs.  However, when she moved in with her fiancé (now husband), she learned that he, generally, did not recycle.  Incensed by this, my sister devised a plan to encourage him to participate in this environmentally friendly behavior.  Knowing that he has a soft spot for animals, my sister began to look up pictures of animals swimming through trash-filled water or harmed by coming into contact with garbage (i.e. heads or fins stuck through plastic soda holders).  She then told him how much of the trash causing the problems in these photos was recyclable and that many of these problems could be prevented.  Appalled by this new knowledge, my brother-in-law began recycling and now recycles regularly.  As my sister explained this method, I realized that, without even knowing it, she was using a form of cognitive dissonance to get him to change his behaviors.

Cognitive dissonance theory, as proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957, centers on the idea that people strive to maintain consistency across their opinions, attitudes, values, and knowledge, also known as their cognitions.  When this consistency is not maintained and two cognitions are in conflict with one another, it is unpleasant.  People attempt to reduce this unpleasantness by changing or devaluing one of the cognitions or adding a new cognition (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  This theory has been shown to be remarkably effective in getting people to adopt more environmentally sound practices.  In one notable study, Dickerson, Thibodeau, Aronson, and Miller (1992) were able to encourage people to take significantly shorter showers, and thereby conserve water, by reminding them of past wasteful behavior and pairing this with a public commitment that implored others to take shorter showers.  The pairing of the negative past behaviors with the public commitment aroused dissonance in the subjects of this study which, in turn, motivated them to use less water, themselves.  In the case of my brother-in-law and his recycling behavior, my sister was utilizing a similar technique, though not exactly on purpose.

Without even realizing it, my sister was inducing dissonance in her husband.  He views himself as an animal lover and cares greatly about all different types of creatures.  By showing him pictures of animals harmed by a behavior in which he participates, my sister was creating conflicting cognitions within her husband.  He cares about animals, but is participating in behaviors that harm them.  In order to reduce this dissonance, my brother-in-law had to change one of his cognitions, in this case, his recycling behavior.  By now recycling, his cognitions have regained consistency and the unpleasantness of the dissonance was reduced.

Seeing how effective cognitive dissonance can be in inducing desired behaviors, on both large and small scales, is fascinating.  Dickerson et al.’s (1992) study is a great example of how inducing hypocrisy through cognitive dissonance in many people can be an effective mechanism in getting them to adopt environmentally friendly behaviors, while my sister’s use of animal pictures with her husband illustrates a simple cognitive dissonance technique that was similarly effective.  Overall, it seems that exploiting this principle is an ideal method for changing behaviors and should continue to be explored as the adoption of eco-friendly behaviors takes on increasingly great importance.

 

References

Dickerson, C.A., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E., & Miller, D. (1992). Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22. 841-854.

 

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understand and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

create an entry — 1 Comment
04
Feb 17

Cause and Effect of Global Warming

As you may have already known, one of the biggest environmental issues that we are facing is global warming. When an individual hears the words global warming, a few things might come to mind. Naturally we think of seas, forests and natural life that inhabits the wilderness. Have you ever asked yourself the question of what is Global Warming? How does Global Warming affect us and almost every living thing on our planet earth? What are some of the causes of Global Warming?

To answer some of the questions we must first understand how does the earth sustains life through energy. Life on earth depends on energy coming from the sun (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2017). Global warming is a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth’s atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of gases and other pollutants. To further understand the cause(s) of global warming one must understand the science behind it. Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the greenhouse effect — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space (Nasa, 2017). How does heat gets trapped in the atmosphere? Certain gases such as water vapor (H2O), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Methane (CH4) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) are responsible for blocking heat from escaping.

Now that we know a bit about Global Warming and the causes behind it, we must understand how global warming affects us and our environment. The environment is one of three major influences on humans at large. Bandura (1986) devised a theory called Triadic Reciprocal Determinism (or Causation) that states that the environment that people live in both influences human behavior and personal factors. People are both influenced by the environment but also have a certain level of control over the environment so that both can affect each other (Nelson, A. 2017).

We must take responsibility for our actions, and as we mature and become adults most of us do just that. As the population grows so does our need for more resources. You might ask, how does population and resources play a role in global warming. For example, let’s look at one of the factors behind global warming; CO2. As the population grows in any town U.S.A, so does the need for jobs, housing and transportation. Building housing and operating factories requires fuel. Using personal or public transportation to get to work and back, running your day to day errands, all requires fuel. Burning fuel, creates CO2. One of the causes of global warming per NASA is CO2.

Some of the things that we’ve seen because of global warming are; longer and hotter summer season, earth quicks, tsunamis, melting glaciers which has drastic effects on our planet earth and negative effect on the creatures that inhabit our forests, seas and most importantly, us, humans. Per the Guardian the death toll in India’s heatwave has climbed towards 1,500 as the country sweltered in one of the worst bouts of hot weather for several years (The Guardian, 2015).

In conclusion, we, humans are the superior species that have control over all other living things on our green planet earth. It is up to us to educate ourselves on the environment that we live in and understand how does our needs, habits, actions and will to live and to survive is affecting our environments. We are on the right track towards fighting global warming by creating hybrid cars for example, or using solar panels and or windmills to create energy. However, we still have a long road ahead of us to completely and successfully eliminate global warming. We can only try by educating masses and creating more green technology, all to sustain precious lives on our home, the planet earth.

References

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nelson, A. (2017). Lesson 4. Applied social psychology: The Environment. Presented on the PSYCH 424 course content site lecture at the Pennsylvania State University.

Shaftel H., Jackson R., Tenenbaum L., National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)., (2017, January 31). A Blanket Around the Earth. Retrieved February 4, 2017, from www.nasa.gov

The Guardian.,(2015, May 28). India heatwave death toll rises as awareness campaigns launch. Retrieved February 4, 2017, from www.theguardian.com

Uncategorized — 5 Comments
14
Sep 16

Environment Blog: What’s in Your Latte? Almond milk and resource dilemmas

I’ll never forget how perplexed I was when my now sister-in-law first explained that her family ran an “ah-mond” ranch in Northern California. Silly me, I’d thought they farmed “ahl-monds,” but she insisted that the five generations of her family were ranchers, not farmers, and that the word almond should be pronounced just as salmon— “the ‘l,’” she said, “is silent.” I’ve since learned to avoid calling their rows of carefully cultivated trees an orchard, although I still have visions of cowboys rounding up fleeing packs of wily almonds when I think about her family’s ranch.

In spite of drought conditions in recent years, new large-scale almond groves (I still can’t bring myself to call them ranches) have proliferated in California as the demand for alternatives to dairy milk have grown (Philpott, 2014). Soy milk was once the go-to substitute for milk drinkers concerned about the lactose content or ethical considerations of dairy, but due to health concerns soy milk has declined in popularity (Saner, 2015). Almond milk has now become increasingly popular, not only domestically, but internationally as well, particularly in Asia (Philpott, 2014).

The ecological impact of fulfilling this growing demand has been significant. Almonds require an astonishing amount of water to produce—according to Mother Jones, roughly 1.1 gallons of water are needed in order to produce a single almond (Park and Lurie, 2014).

Image source: Mother Jones

Image source: Mother Jones

Consequently, thousands of new wells have been drilled in California (which produces 80% of the worlds almonds), thereby contributing to draining already taxed aquifers (Philpott, 2014). Almond cultivation alone now accounts for an astounding 10% of California’s total water supply per year (Holthaus, 2014). To illustrate the fragility of these aquifers, consider that US Geological Survey hydrologists have discovered that in California’s San Joaquin valley, ground levels have dropped an average of eleven inches a year due to excessive groundwater removal (Sneed, Brandt, & Solt, 2013).

In short, the drive to capitalize on global demand for almonds comes into conflict with current and future public access to the resource of water. As it stands now, growers are experiencing something “akin to an arms race,” according to one hydrologist, because new, deeper wells tap ground water below the level of existing wells, leaving neighbors to choose between drilling even deeper or running dry (Krieger, 2014). “People don’t know, or don’t care, that they are also pulling water from thousands of feet around them,” [the hydrologist explained], “If their neighbor suffers? Well, it’s a dog-eat-dog world” (Krieger, 2014). Unless measures are taken to fairly manage water consumption, this situation could become a classic case of what William Lloyd referred to as the tragedy of the commons (Schneider, Grubman, & Coutts, 2012).

In addition to placing legislative constrictions on water use, I believe applied social psychology interventions could be implemented to influence consumer demand for water-intensive agricultural products. Taking shorter showers is a nice step to take in order to be more environmentally conscious, but curtailing the purchase of some of our preferred products can, potentially, have a greater ecological impact. For example, while the amount of water used to produce almond milk is startling, it pales in comparison to the amount of water needed to produce animal products such as dairy or beef (Walker, 2015). Regardless of which agricultural product one believes should be vilified, the fact remains that altering our consumer behavior can impact our environment as much as (if not more than) our personal habits.

References:

Holthaus, E. (2014, May 14). 10 percent of California’s water goes to almond farming. That’s nuts. Retrieved September 14, 2016, from http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/_10_percent_of_california_s_water_goes_to_almond_farming.html

Krieger, L. M. (2014, March 29). California drought: San Joaquin Valley sinking as farmers race to tap aquifer. Retrieved September 14, 2016, from http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/03/29/california-drought-san-joaquin-valley-sinking-as-farmers-race-to-tap-aquifer/

Park, A., & Lurie, J. (2014, February 24). It takes how much water to grow an almond?! Retrieved September 14, 2016, from http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-californias-water-going

Philpott, T. (2014, July 14). Your almond habit is sucking California dry. Retrieved September 14, 2016, from http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/07/your-almond-habit-sucking-califoirnia-dry

Saner, E. (2015, October 21). Almond milk: Quite good for you – very bad for the planet. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2015/oct/21/almond-milk-quite-good-for-you-very-bad-for-the-planet

Schneider, F. W., Coutts, L. M., & Gruman, J. A. (Eds.). (2011). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Sneed, Michelle, Brandt, Justin, and Solt, Mike, 2013, Land subsidence along the Delta-Mendota Canal in the northern part of the San Joaquin Valley, California, 2003–10: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5142, 87 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20135142

Walker, T. (2015, May 5). California drought: Almond growers fight back over reports they are causing chronic water shortages. The Independent – Americas. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/california-drought-almond-growers-fight-back-over-reports-they-are-causing-chronic-water-shortages-10224339.html

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
24
Sep 15

Penn State University Park’s Recycling Initiatives

Environmental issues are at the forefront of a lot of people’s agenda, especially with the upcoming elections. College campuses such as Penn State University Park are making the proper changes to make it easier for students to reduce, reuse, and recycle without even thinking about it. I am such a huge proponent for sustainability causes, mainly because it can be accomplished so easily. In 2014 the National Recycling Coalition (NRC) gave Penn State the “Outstanding Higher Education Award” (National Recycling Coalition names Penn State ‘Best of the Best’) and last year alone of the 14,163 tons of solid waste we produced, 7,991 tons (56%) was diverted from landfills (Recycling and Composting). With the growing fear of the impact of global warming and societies ability to reduce methane production while also helping the community sustainability is a widely growing field of interest. Since my freshman year at University Park in 2011, I have seen the incredible changes that the school has been making and the impact these changes have had on the students.

I have seen the campus grow from having just one recycling can in the dorm rooms and simple can and bottle recycling in the dining areas and the HUB, to this year completely ridding the campus of polystyrene (Styrofoam). In 2015, University Park has taken several steps to making campus a sustainable environment. Instead of having just one recycling option in all the buildings on campus, there are now options for composite, glass, plastics (different subgroups which are specified on all of the containers), and paper. Not only does this promote recycling by almost forcing it, but it also educates with descriptive signs detailing which plastics are which. The lights in most campus buildings have been switched to more efficient LED lights that last longer, take lower wattage, mercury free, and cost effective (Energy Efficient Lighting). They are also motion activated to turn on and off when people exit or enter the room which yields 34% less energy than comparable buildings. The toilets in almost all the buildings are now also reducing the amount of water used for every single flush by 16.67% (Smeal LEED Certification Process).

Waste and Recycling information sheet_Page_1-580x751

There are several other sustainability initiatives taking place on campus like both interior and exterior features (native and/or adapted vegetation, storm water management, daylight and central staircases), sustainable purchasing and waste diversion, green cleaning, and other practices outlined in U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification process guidelines. My favorite new initiative applied this year is the elimination of Styrofoam from the South eating district on campus. Last school year alone, South eating commons used 279,400 Styrofoam containers (Penn State On Campus Living – University Park). That is only one of the eight eating establishments on campus. The new system gives customers a reusable Green2Go box that when returned 10 times warrants a free meal. If you do no return it, the individual is charged $5 until returned. If implemented throughout the campus, this could greatly impact and reduce Penn State’s footprint, all while setting an example for campuses throughout the country. This is just the beginning of a long process to make our planet healthier and will take the participation of communities everywhere. Attitudes about recycling need to be more positive rather than viewing it as a chore. Positive attitudes will result in positive behaviors.

11942295_935054926548897_1746089189464064849_o

References

National Recycling Coalition names Penn State ‘Best of the Best’ | Penn State University. (2014, October 9). Retrieved September 24, 2015, from http://news.psu.edu/story/329635/2014/10/09/campus-life/national-recycling-coalition-names-penn-state-best-best

Recycling and Composting. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2015, from http://www.sustainability.psu.edu/recycling-and-composting#recycling-composting

Energy Efficient Lighting. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2015, from http://eartheasy.com/live_energyeff_lighting.htm#led

Smeal LEED Certification Process. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2015, from http://www.smeal.psu.edu/sustainability/leed-certification

Penn State On Campus Living – University Park. (2015, September 3). Retrieved September 24, 2015, from https://www.facebook.com/PennStateOnCampusLivingUP/posts/935060696548320?comment_id=935249216529468&reply_comment_id=935450543176002&total_comments=6&comment_tracking={“tn”:”R”}

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
20
Sep 15

Consuming Our Planet

The uncertainty of the long term effects that our decisions and actions have on the environment make it easy at times to rationalize behaviors that one knows could and probably will be detrimental in the long run. Personal gratification is often chosen over the consideration of whether this action or behavior will have long term effects, over the environment and sustainability. This tale of two choices is what is known as a social dilemma (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). When discussing interventions that could aid in conservation of certain resources in our environment, it is often been discussed at a micro level, however one cannot help but consider the bigger picture of the resource dilemma.  Society as a whole seems to fall into the social trap of indulging in short term pleasures, often without considering the long term effect it has on the environment and the future sustainability of our planet.

Recycling is a great way to help the environment, as opposed to not recycling. Yet, does one ever stop to question why do we have so much recycling? Consumerism has a huge effect on many aspects of our environment and the degradation of it. With society’s insatiable appetite for the latest restaurant, toy, video game, technology, cars, and cell phones, there is not enough room for all the things that we eventually throw by the waste side. It has been said that American’s consumption is higher than anywhere else in the world (Mount Holyoke College, 2015). Not to mention the mass amounts of resources that are necessary to produce and process these goods: land, water, trees, and fuel. Environmentally, to create these products there is a great deal of pollution and byproducts that are involved with manufacturing. Forests are being destroyed, the ozone is diminishing, water supplies are being depleted and polluted, global warming is occurring, the lands are eroding and we are running out of land in general.

Consumption patterns must be changed, but that would be a major undertaking. This is not a topic that is heard of as often as the other areas of environmental concern. Perhaps, this is for a few reasons. First, our economy is heavily dependent on our consumerism. One must remember that economic growth is measured by the gross national product (GNP), which is “the sum total of goods and services produced by a given society in a given year” (Shah, 2005). It is a vicious cycle. One must consider that the system seems stacked against the change of these consumer habits. For instance, technology is made with planned obsolescence, to ensure one needs the latest and greatest or we are automatically at a disadvantage or disconnected. Second, our consumerism is indicative of our social status. If one has the original iPhone, they may be asked if a quarter is necessary to use it. There is shame associated with anti-consumerism. This indeed is a sign our perspective about the need for things may be skewed, as the need for them might just be our planet’s demise.

This tragedy of the commons will eventually lead to a very unpleasant circumstance if change does not occur in the immediate future.  While efforts on recycling and conservation are certainly commendable, the challenge is to address the bigger social picture and the bigger system that is reaping rewards while wreaking havoc on the planet. Perhaps the best form of intervention would be knowledge. For example, mandating environmental science in the curriculum at the secondary level of school would be a start. Although, the easiest thing to do is to rationalize that everyone is a consumer, that it’s necessary for the economy, and that one person won’t make that big of a difference, this resource dilemma must be thought through by each individual if change is ever to occur. This change must be of a social nature and possibly with some better government regulation.

To see one’s environmental footprint in everyday decisions National Geographic has an excellent educational interactive site up. It is definitely worth checking out!

http://education.nationalgeographic.com/media/human-footprint-interactive/

There is a great video out on the whole process behind consumerism that presents the real picture one cannot ignore after watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eWBg8ojno4

References
Mount Holyoke College. (2015, September 20). American Consumerism and the Global Environment. Retrieved from mtholyoke.edu: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~kelle20m/classweb/wp/page6.html
Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psycholgy: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). California: Sage Publicationss.
Shah, A. (2005, August 10). Effects of Consumerism. Retrieved September 2015, from Global Issues.Org: http://www.globalissues.org/article/238/effects-of-consumerism

 

Uncategorized — 2 Comments
20
Sep 15

Why Our Environment Does Not Change

In my family group, we attempt to leave as small of a carbon footprint as possible. Teaching lessons in conservation and protecting our resources is rather important.  With this said, I found myself in quite a dilemma the other day while driving to the store with my seven-year-old son.

The conversation went like this:

Son: Mommy, what is the black stuff coming from that truck?
Me: Well, it depends on the truck as if it is a diesel truck, it is the “normal” exhaust. If it is a gasoline truck, it could be an issue within the engine.
Son: Is it bad?
Me: Yes, it is bad for our air.  It is called pollution.  Remember?  We have talked about pollution and you learned in class.
Son: I remember. Why can’t we tell the person they are wrong and to stop?
Me *can not form words*

How does a parent explain to their child that you cannot simply walk up to another and inform them they are polluting the air we all have to breathe?  Life does not work in that manner nowadays.  However, when you think about it the way my son did, someone should in fact make a comment to the individual.  Too many individuals today are so nonchalant when it comes to the limited resources we have on Earth.  I am not sure if it is simply for the reasons they do not care or if they are not informed.  It reminds me of trying to persuade an individual to be energy conscious or to recycle.  One cannot be forced, they must understand the benefits and have desire to make a change.

The social dilemma here is too many individuals are not venturing to make a change.  Many times an electric car limits the individual to short driving, i.e. staying in the town they reside as there are not areas for them to charge.  When it comes to recycling, all too often smaller towns do not have a recycling program (such as the town we reside) therefore if an individual desires to recycle, they must drive a few towns away.  Whether it is simply for the reason that electric cars are not feasible or implementing a community/city wide recycling plan is too costly, the problem will not change until someone or group begins the process.

Many groups have come forward over the years to inform the public of the many issues we can face down the road if change does not happen soon.  At times, individuals hear what is being said and decide this is something they want to do, although they are unsure how much time, effort, or even money it will take to contribute to the campaign.  If they do make the decision, they may begin the campaign, stick with it for some time, but then stop as they are becoming overwhelmed with the extra effort they are giving when they do not see others doing the same.

Our environment has given the individuals of this world so much bounty; however, this bounty will not last forever.  It is time to stand up and make a change.  It is election time in many local communities, therefore, make the issue known and see that change is made.

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
20
Sep 15

Environmental Practices Around Town

Applying social psychology to environmental issues is a unique and interesting twist on altering problematic behaviors.  Although I saw the value in changing perception in other ways, I never really thought about it in this context.  Since this week’s lesson focused on different strategies used for recycling, energy conservation, and reduction of water usage, I wondered how this applied in my everyday life.  In what ways are utility companies, businesses, and even my employer effective in discouraging wasteful behaviors?  To learn of the answer, I decided to become environmentally aware of practices in my home, of local businesses frequented, and my work environment to find out.

Purchasing a fully electric home, I anticipated my electric use to be a bit on the higher end.  After all, attending school online uses energy, as well as cooking, using hot water, air conditioning, heating, etc.  So it came as no surprise to see my monthly usage for the square footage of my home.  What was shocking and made me take notice, was after receiving a home energy report that showed astronomical usage compared to other homes in the area.  This detailed report showed the times of peak usage, an average day of the previous month, usage of similar homes, homes that are both similar and efficient, and my home in comparison.  If you are found to have a good rating, one “smiley” face is received and for great, two.  My first report showed that I was well behind similar homes in the area, but this changed after a few months when the rating of good was received and later great.  While I did not think such awareness would have this type of impact, I am pleased to say that it did and I am more cognizant of my usage. Schultz et al. (as cited in Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts, 2012) saw similar effects in their study of home energy conservation.  The researchers found when a report of energy consumption was given that provided a comparison of usage and a smile or a frowned face as the “…injunctive norm of approval or disapproval,” households responded by using less energy (Schneider et al., 2012, pp. 309-310).

Besides energy consumption, waste is yet another area that garnered little attention – until I noticed the “face-lift” many trash receptacles received. During lunch time in downtown D.C., I frequently gather with co-workers or friends to grab a salad, chicken roti, or whatever may seem tasty for the day.  Usually when our meals have been completed, the fast food establishment offered large trash receptacles to discard of all remaining items. However, this is no longer the same. Over the past few months, I have noticed that the trash cans are not just one large bin anymore.  Restaurants now have containers that divide the different type of waste for recycling purposes.  Since everything cannot fit into certain squares or holes, the consumer must be mindful of how to discard the trash.  Although I am not certain how the trash is handled from there, this method of sorting has rolled over into my home life.  By being mindful of the way trash is discarded in restaurants, I am aware of the same processes at home and have set up separate areas for different items (plastic, paper, etc.).  I have also started to reuse plastic bags, bottles, or anything that can be used on more than one occasion.  This helps me to participate in the recycling efforts in my community and make a small step towards helping the environment.

Since so much time is spent in the office, it was pretty interesting to look at behaviors encouraged by building management and my employer.  Upon entering the building, visitors/workers are introduced to the stance building management has taken with respect to sustainability. Logos of Energy Star and the U.S. Green Building Council are affixed to the entrance and are very visible.  This relays the message (at minimum) that the building is energy efficient, conserves water, and participates in recycling efforts.  In testing this assumption, I stayed attentive to ways the bathrooms were designed, trash practices, and energy efficiency products.  Within my office, there are various containers for paper, plastic, and general trash, then others for paperwork that requires shredding.  While my employer has provided all energy efficient laptops/computers and equipment within the office, the building has also taken steps to ensure compliance is met.  For example, if an office is unoccupied for a certain amount of time, the light automatically turns off.  This helps to reduce usage when others forget or fail to turn their lights off when departing for the day.  When looking at the restroom, I noticed low-flush, manual toilets and hand towels made from recycled paper to dry our hands after washing.  Our rooftop terrace, which provides amazing views of the city, boasts of greenery that provides some comforts of a park setting and allows tenants to gather for lunch, social functions, or just a moment enjoy the view.  Trash practices are prominent here also, where much like my office, there are containers for plastic, glass, etc. that is separated for recycling.

All in all, applied social psychology is all around us and with respect to the environment, there are practices being used every day.  Although we may not be aware of its effects, the trash separation at fast food restaurants and my office carry over into my home and it helps with community efforts.  Likewise, my utility company implemented a program that has proven successful in studies and now in several homes within the area.  While we may not always be mindful of such behaviors, it is a pleasant thought to see how it has helped curb some of my bad habits.  Have you noticed the same in your environment?  Try taking an observational tour to find out.  You will be surprised at what you discover.

 

Reference:

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. (Eds.). (2012). Applied social psychology: understanding and addressing social and practical problems (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Uncategorized — 3 Comments
12
Feb 15

Shhh, don’t say it: Climate Change

by Cynthia Roebuck

What a dilemma we find ourselves — shortages of water (USDA, 2014a), depletion of fish (main source of protein for billions) as a result of overfishing and ocean acidification (World Health Organization, n.d.), elimination of natural forests at alarming rates (Discovery, n.d.), large numbers of species on the critical endangered lists (IUCN, 2014), and land loss from rising sea levels and sinking lands (IPCC, 2008, p. 20).  These problems are not just in remote African villages or an island in the Philippines.  We are experiencing these tragedies here in the USA now, and it is irrefutably proven by thousands of global scientists working independently that human beings are largely to blame for the cause of these conditions through the excessive amounts of carbon input into the environment (IPCC, 2014).  It is also important to note the federal government made a firm stand on the recognition of climate change being a reality with the USDA (2014b) opening seven Climate Hubs for Risk Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change with two additional sub-hubs in the Southeast and Midwest to assist farmers and researchers to find ways to mitigate the changing environment.  Our Central Intelligence Agency as far back as 2009 has considered climate change as a national security issue, but all countries with resources do this also.

The problem is so vast and so serious that it should be considered a public health risk and interventions should be considered on this merit.  This is why the stages of change model that is usually used to address addictions may be able if applied to this problem help in sorting through the confusion of people’s addiction to behaviors that are harmful to the environment they live in, e.g. not recycling.  According to Lafreniere & Cramer (2012), the five stages are precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance with each stage being interchangeable (p. 181).  This post only considers one pro and con example for each stage as it has been experienced in the USA with specific attention given to efforts at Pennsylvania State University (PSU).

The first stage is precontemplation; and, looking at the surrounding communities around University Park in Pennsylvania or any area in the USA, it can be realized not all communities have decided to be guided by scientific proof of the need for reducing individual household’s carbon footprint.  The second stage involves contemplating the problem and considering how to mitigate and adapt to these changes.  This contemplation is currently facilitated in American institutes brought about through drought that is so severe in eight states that specific areas were declared disaster areas last year (USDA, 2014a; USDA, 2014b).  Also prompting research and contemplation is the 80% reductions in oyster populations in Oregon and Washington (Barton, Hales, Waldbusser, Langdon & Feely, 2006), extreme weather causing devastation across the nation (New Jersey and New Orleans), and red tides at Florida beaches (Stein, 2014) to name a few specific areas of scientific research; but, there are also segments within society refusing to contemplate the future beyond their lifetime.  How do you reach this niche?  This is when contemplation needs to consider enacting penalties to bring about compliance, e.g. emission tests.  The third stage of this model is preparation.  This is when communities have made a commitment to lessen their carbon output; but, then, there are those industries that cannot or will not lessen their carbon release without sanctions.  The fourth stage is action.  This is happening now with new standards for electrical suppliers requiring an accountability for their carbon emissions.  It is also happening in national businesses developing national recycling programs.  But, without the right resources for implementing these programs some communities discontinue their environmental services of this nature, and some branches of a business will ignore the national policy.  How can you change this attitude?  A whole new set of schemas need to be introduced so that new social norms can be established.

This may be happening right now through Pennsylvania State University’s Sustainability Institute’s zero waste campaign conducted through the green team, Mobius, at the University Park campus (PSU, 2013).  This program has the possibility of fulfilling the fifth stage of the stages of change model — maintenance.

The reasoning for viewing Pennsylvania State University’s Sustainability Institute at having possible success in the maintenance stage is because the recycling program enacted on PSU’s University campus targets changing students’ behavior that may possibly change students’ social norms off of campus.  This is attempted through recycling and composting programs introduced on campus that utilize peripheral routes to persuasion through placing signs and recycle and compost bins in all university buildings.  Central routes to persuasion have also been developed through Mobius introducing sound reasoning and facts to students to help with an understanding of how a thrown out pizza box consumes energy.  This knowledge should help students comply with recycling to relieve dissonance that may occur when recycling is ignored, and it has potential for staying with the student when they graduate because of the years of practicing this routine while they are at school.

Of course, it cannot be known if Mobius’ sustainability efforts can alter social norm without a way to measure it.  But, we do know students at University Park are embracing recycling.  In 2013, PSU generated 14,204 tons of waste at University Park with 60% of it recycled, and it was 1,248 tons less than in 2012 (PSU, 2014a).  It should also be noted composting efforts implemented last year resulted in 850 tons of food waste being turned into 2,305 tons of mulch for campus grounds (PSU, 2014a).  This tells us Mobius is effective in the here and now at changing students’ behavior, but will students carry this behavior with them off of campus as their implicit attitude?

Given these points of its success, there needs to be evaluations to determine the effectiveness of Mobius’ platform in bringing about an attitude change.  This type of an evaluation will also provide quantitative data that other institutions can consider in creating programs of similar design.  Now is the time to do this.  It can be accomplished with administering a questionnaire to incoming freshman students’ to gauge their attitudes on recycling and energy consumption, and it does not have to involve costs of the whole student body.  It can be done with a good stratified sample of the student body.  Questionnaires should be completed at the beginning of incoming freshmen’s first semester, repeated each year before graduation, and ideally two years after graduation.  This could document if intrinsic attitudes will change when students interact with Mobius’ sustainability programs at University Park, and it can reveal what the length of time it takes to effect attitude with this approach.  But, the real test of Mobius’ effectiveness will be revealed in the administering of the same questionnaire two years after graduation to the same sample.  I believe because the students are immersed in an environment that considers recycling in all areas of professional and personal life during their four years on campus that it will have an impact on their implicit attitudes resulting in recycling and sustainability considerations becoming second nature.  But, we will have to wait to see for this, but we do know that it is effective in the here and now.  And, it is exciting to consider the large student body of international and rural American students taking these healthy practices home with them and changing the behaviors of their hometowns.

References

Barton, A., Hales, B., Waldbusser, G.F., Langdon, C. & Feely, R.A. (2006). The Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, shows negative correlation to naturally elevated carbon dioxide levels: Implications for near-term ocean acidification effects. Limnology Oceanographer, 57(3), 2012, 698-710. DOI: 10.4319/lo.2012.57.3.0698.

Central Intelligence Agency. (2009). CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html.

Discovery. (n.d.) Threats to Biodiversity. Curiosity, Discovery. Retrieved from http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/deforestation-biggest-threat-biodiversity.

IPCC. (2008). Chapter 2 Observed and projected changes in climate as they relate to water.  International Panel for Climate Change. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_technical_papers.shtml

IPCC. (2014). Organization. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml.

IUCN. (2014). International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Red List of threatened Species. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/4967/0.

Lafreniera, K.D. & Cramer, K.M. (2015). Applying Social Psychology to Health, in Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. (2nd ed.) F.W. Schnedier, J.A. Gruman, & L.M. Coutts (Eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1412976381.

Pennsylvania State University (2013). green.psu.edu. Retrieved from http://www.green.psu.edu/.

Pennsylvania State University. (2014a). Recycling and Waste Management. Retrieved online at: http://www.green.psu.edu/ or http://sustainability.psu.edu/live/faculty-researchers/recycling-waste-management/recycle#stats.

Stein, L. (2014). Massive red tide bloom washing off Florida’s Gulf of Mexico coast. Reuters. Retrieved 7 February 2015 from http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/07/us-usa-florida-redtide-idUSKBN0G72FG20140807.

USDA. (2014a). Disaster and Drought Information. United States Department of Agriculture.  Retrieved from http://usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=DISASTER_ASSISTANCE.CC.

USDA. (2014b). Office of the Chief Economist. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/regional_hubs.htm.

World Health Organization. (n.d.). Global and regional food consumption patterns and trends. World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/3_foodconsumption/en/index4.html.

create an entry — 2 Comments
21
Sep 14

Challenging Energy Companies to Compete

by Amy Caraballo

Since the dawn of time, humans have thrived on competition. Today, countries continue to compete for dominance in both the financial markets and for total power. Competition isn’t limited to national governments, however. In the United States, entire weekends are devoted to televised sporting events and children, as young as toddlers, compete in sports (Sports Connection, n.d.). Even the performing arts have become televised competitions. It seems only natural then to look at the power of competition to change our energy consuming ways. What about our options, though? Few companies offer much renewable energy. Even those that do offer only a small fraction of the energy produced through renewable resources (American Physical Society, n.d.). How can consumers meaningfully change our consumption when the options are so severely limited? But, what if we used this naturally competitive streak of our human nature on the actual energy companies, themselves?

What Do We Need?

Nearly 40% of the world’s electricity is produced by burning coal (Nijhuis, 2014). The burning of coal is one of the main contributors of greenhouse gases, specifically CO2 (Nijhuis, 2014). And coal isn’t the only problem. All fossil fuels, including natural gas, capjerimum_Greenhouse_Effectpropane, gasoline, even butane give off CO2 as a byproduct of their use (EIA, n.d.). In fact, 84% of all the world’s power is created through fossil fuels. (American Physical Society, n.d.). These resources are also severely limited and we are destined to run out (Riddel, Ronson, Counts, & Spenser, n.d.). It is obvious that we need to find renewable and ecologically safe alternatives and we need to do this soon. But with such changes come costs and there has been little financial incentive for energy companies to change their ways. After all, consumers still need energy regardless of where it comes from.

What Do We Know?

In 1996, Siero et al. studied how a phenomenon called comparative feedback influenced industrial employees to conserve energy while at work. Basically, the scientists found that when a group of workers saw how their own conservation efforts stacked up against another group’s efforts, they worked harder at conserving energy (Siero et al, 1996). This comparative feedback idea has also been used successfully in getting individuals to reduce energy consumption at home (Midden, Meter, Weenig & Zieverink, 1983). Knowing that competition also drives much of our capitalistic economy, it would seem that using comparative feedback to stir up competition might also work on the energy companies, themselves.

How Do We Do It?

From a financial standpoint, there is very little reason for an energy company to scrap current technology and know-how to convert resources to renewable energy. Conversion is costly in both time and resources. Though we can make many moral and environmental arguments for switching, the bottom line is usually about money. In order for energy companies to change, there has to be financial incentive. One way we might incentivize the industry is to create government sponsored competition. Though thispowerplants idea might incur public costs, these costs could be minimal if in the form of advertisement. Using the idea of comparative feedback, the government could create public advertising campaigns that gave statistics about how well each energy company was doing in terms of changing to renewable sources. This advertising could serve as a financial incentive for companies who were working harder at switching to renewable energy. Consumers would be able to know which energy companies were more dedicated to saving the planet and thus these companies could outsell their competition.

What Does This Look Like?

Much like other United States Government sponsored campaigns (think The Ad Council), there could be multimedia campaigns that ensured that people knew which companies were changing over to renewable resources. This could be updated on a monthly or semi-monthly basis and be part of the national news, for instance. In order for it to work, this information would have to be consistently sent out and updated. People would need to know when to expect the information and where to get it. As long as the information was flowing, consumers would have choices and the energy companies would have to work hard at keeping the consumers happy.

But Will It Work?

A program is only as good as its evaluation process. There would have to be a way to measure how much positive change was happening in the form of continually more available renewable energy and less available fossil fuel sources after this comparative advertising campaign took flight. We would have to measure how much renewable energy was available in the short-term of the program and then how much was available in more of a long-term time frame. Because this intervention also presumes that consumers want renewable energy, more studies should be done to gauge the public’s knowledge about the dire circumstances of our continued reliance on fossil fuels. The knowledge or lack thereof could affect how much or little change happens in terms of energy production from the industry. In other words, they might build it, but will we buy it?

For those who are aware of the dire circumstances of global climate change and the limited supply of fossil fuels, switching to renewable energy is, well, a no-brainer. If we want the Earth to support life a little while longer we must find a way to reduce our usage. For those who are hard to convince, however, we might need some incentives. Competition is as old as we humans, ourselves. Perhaps we can use that competitive quality to push everyone, even energy companies, to save our species.

American Physical Society. (n.d.). Fossil Energy. Retrieved from http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/energy/fossil.cfm

Midden, C., Meter, J., Weenig, M., & Zieverink, H. (1983). Using feedback, reinforcement and information to reduce energy consumption in households: A field-experiment. Economic Psychology, 3.1, 65-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(83)90058-2

Nijhuis, M. (2014). Can Coal Ever Be Clean? Retrieved from http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/coal/nijhuis-text

Riddell, A., Ronson, S., Counts, G., & Spenser, K. (n.d.). Towards Sustainable Energy: The Current Fossil Fuel Problem and the Prospects of Geothermal and Nuclear Power. Retrieved from http://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/trade_environment/energy/hfossil.html

Sports Connection LLC. (n.d.). Lil’ Kickers Soccer. Retrieved from http://www.sportsconnectionnc.com/details.php?Lil-Kickers-Soccer-40

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (n.d.). Energy – Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients. Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.cfm

create an entry — 1 Comment
19
Sep 14

Making Changes to Reduce Our Carbon Footprint

I am sitting here brainstorming, thinking of a good environmental issue to write about and how applied social psychology relates to it.  I could write about how human dependence on fossil fuels is causing global warming, but I won’t.  Instead I’m going to write about my own personal experience as a consumer of natural energy resources, and the changes I’ve made to reduce my family’s carbon footprint.

I wish I could say that it was my concern for the environment which urged me and my family to make the changes initially, but it was not.  Eight years ago my husband lost his job as a production manager at the manufacturing plant he had worked at for ten years.  This was a major impact on our lives, our income changed drastically.  The first thing I did was research on all the ways we could reduce our monthly spending.  Some major things our family could change that would reduce our bills were related to the environment; we could reduce our consumption of electricity, water, natural gas, and petroleum.  I came up with a list of all the changes we would make that would save us a bundle of money and also help to reduce our carbon footprint.  We had a savings, thank goodness, or we would not have been able to make some of the changes required.

First we reduced our use of gasoline; my husband traded in his gas guzzling SUV for a more economical sedan.  His MPG went from 15 to 27.  Then we went out and bought the energy efficient CFL bulbs and changed all of the light bulbs in our home.  We also began getting in the habit of turning off lights when not in use and turning of the TV when nobody is physically watching it.  Another way we reduced our carbon footprint was to conserve water.  I’ve always been thoughtful about that, but we made a few more changes.  For instance our dishwasher has an economy setting which uses much less water, so we began using that setting.  My son, who loves to dilly dally in the shower, with our encouragement, reduced his shower time from twenty minutes to ten minutes.  We changed the shower heads in our two bathrooms to water conserving ones.  Another change I made was creating a way to collect rainwater from our gutter system to be used to water our yard instead of using the water hose.  Another change we made was using our tap water for drinking water, instead of purchasing bottled water.  Which after research I learned that bottled water does nothing but line the pockets of whoever sells it.  We also had our furnace changed from the original one that was a good fifty plus years old with 45% efficiency, to a new model that cut our natural gas consumption nearly in half with a new furnace that has 90% efficiency.  This cost a little bit upfront, but has greatly reduced our monthly natural gas bill and was definitely worth it.  With all the changes being made, we felt it was important to have a family meeting to discuss the importance of being more thoughtful of the energy we use.  In order to help our children make the changes we got them involved and made the good energy saving behaviors part of their reward chart.  We also assigned them jobs; my son was put in charge of recycling, and our daughter is the one who makes sure we are turning of lights and not leaving things on that are not in use.  They are good little energy conservation law enforcers.

Even though we are back on track economically, the new changes that we made are still with us and have encouraged our children to participate actively in reducing our carbon footprint and coming up with ideas to be more thoughtful consumers.  My son is in charge of the recycling that goes on around here.  He’s like a little recycling policeman, making sure that anything that could go in the recycle bins gets put there and not accidentally put in the trash.  He even finds interesting new uses for items that would normally get tossed out; for instance an old plastic shelf that we were going to throw out has become a display shelf in his room for all his favorite toys.

I found that as these changes were being made in our home, I began talking about it with my friends.  When I told them about the cost savings we experienced after making these changes, some of my friends began to make some of the changes also.  This relates to the idea in the book that people with common interests and beliefs tend to socialize with and influence each other (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).   It seemed that the more conscious we were of our use of energy and water, the more thoughtful we became about other areas we could make changes.  For instance, I now use nothing but reusable grocery bags when I shop.  I also is try to make errands as efficient as possible, so I’m not driving all over using more gas than necessary.  At first it takes a bit of an effort, but then over time becomes habit and though initially these changes were motivated by the need to reduce our costs, it is a good feeling knowing that with a few simple acts that we are reducing our carbon footprint.  These habits will carry on with our children, as I’m certain that by the time they are adults it will be an important part of their daily life.

 

 

Reference

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., Coutts, L. (2012).  Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.) Los Angeles: Sage.

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
23
Jun 14

“Booth or table? Smartphone section or other?”

Study 1, article 1

So here are two links to a quick little article and its study I found online about cell phone users and our perceived concepts of privacy. In a lesson given by Professor Yarwood of Penn State’s World Campus Psych424 Applied Social Psychology class, the point that cell phone use in public has compromised the level of privacy for others was made. It is true that “privacy in public” can be in the eye of the beholder, or the eye of the smartphone-holder. According to a study done by Tel Aviv University, a fair majority of smartphone users will say that their devices provide them with plenty of privacy. But most of us know this is not true. Just the other day I was picking up a pizza order and the women behind me was on her cell phone. I can tell you this about her and her life.

  • She got caught lying about where she just was, then again lying about whose house she was staying at.
  • Her brother doesn’t feed his children.
  • If it wasn’t for her courageous, covert trip to the pizza shop, her nieces and nephews would starve.

There I was, waiting for pizza, and my ears were being forcefully violated with someone else’s business. That woman and many other smartphone users seem to be oblivious to the reality of their so called public privacy. I’m not sure she would have had that same conversation with complete strangers. So why did she have that conversation where complete strangers can hear her? Should I have to forfeit the rights of my ears in public because smartphone users can’t confine their own privacy to themselves? Do these smartphone users really expect others to respect their privacy when it isn’t being handled in a private way at all? Well at the end of the first link I provided, the author suggests an idea, which was also brought up in the original study that could lend my ears some relief. Imagine walking into a restaurant and being asked, “Booth or a table?” Now imagine the hostess’ next question being, “smartphone or other?” Well the researchers from the university anticipate the possibly of the public being redesigned around communications technology, the way it was years ago for smokers and non-smokers. One problem with this though. I am a smartphone user. Yikes. Will I have to be categorized before I make myself more aware of the reality of my own privacy in public? I hope not. I already worry about bad seating options in restaurants and airplanes just for having a child!

Communications technologies appear to be changing our social behaviors and the way we interact (or don’t interact) with others (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). We interact with each other differently and avoid each other in new ways. We let voicemail and auto responses like, “I’m driving” reject others, instead of just taking incoming calls. We are letting entire lobbies full of strangers know, you want pizza for dinner, and that you’ll be late because you have to pick up that cream from the pharmacy for that thing you got. Well as interesting as all that sounds, some of us would rather fresh, crisp silence than have clouds of pesky, private conversations be blown into our ears. Perhaps further research, like those being done at Tel Aviv University surrounding the behavioral habits of communications technology users will bring the public to a more communication-conscious state of public awareness.

 

References

American friends of tel aviv university; smart phones are changing real world privacy settings. (2012). Telecommunications Weekly, 1038. Retrieved from         http://search.proquest.com/docview/1015615980?accountid=13158

Perry, D. (2012, May 14). Smartphone Users Less Aware of Lack of Privacy in Public. Retrieved June 21, 2014, from http://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphone-privacy-study-smartphone-users-public,news-15182.html

PSU 424. (2014). Applied Social Psychology. Lesson 9: Media/ communications     Technology. Retrieved June 20, 1014, from       https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su14/psych424/001/content/10_lesson/02            _page.html

 

Uncategorized — No Comments
15
Jun 14

A Common Problem

Tragedy of the commons refers to a concept about the exploitation of resources that are perceived as limitless. According to Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts (2012), this concept derives from areas known as commons. My hometown, Lynn, MA, still has a portion of its once vast commons preserved. The commons was a public field for animal owners to bring their livestock to graze. Because there were no set rules, the grazing fields were in essence, limitless. As more livestock provided more food source for a larger population, and larger populations owned more livestock, more of the commons were being used, and the commons were found to be very limited. Eventually, resources were diminished, fewer livestock could be provided for, and less food source resulted in a decrease in population.

As resources appear to be limitless, they are exploited. This exploitation causes a ripple effect that does more harm than good. We are still seeing this problem today. Although each household no longer needs its own cow and sheep, each person does need his own living space. Land is a limited resource. Yet it appears by the way it is being used, that we are not all fully aware of this resource’s limits. As more and more people are born, more space is needed for living, agriculture, business expansions, etc. We see people of wealth building bigger and better homes with more rooms than they have members of their families and grand, pointless, entryways of wasted ecosystems (which is another problem entirely). As habitable land becomes scares, we witness wars, famine, and migrations. Our history is full of examples of the struggle between living space and populations (the potato famine, immigrants coming through Ellis Island, NY, etc.).

Over populated regions cannot sustain the numbers of people that multiply continuously. People die from overcrowded living conditions, and lack of nourishment. We can begin to see these effects in places like New York, where land is so scares that we look to a new “limitless” space to live in; the sky. Projects, skyscraping condos and office buildings are riddled across the overpopulated parts of our country. Although Pruitt-Igoe (as cited by Schneider et al., 2012) was unsuccessful in addressing the tragedy of the commons dilemma in St. Louis back in the 50s, architects, along with the whole growing population, should be mindful of our limited spaces, and should continue to seek solutions to making the best of the space we have.

Perhaps regulations should be put into place, where there are restrictions against excessive land ownership in regards to purpose (conservation, warranted use, status symbol, etc.). If we are not careful, we may be witnessing the turn of events that will lead us to the rebirth of new commons sooner than later, and this does not involve the continued birth of our species.

References

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2005). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
01
Jun 14

Environment ASP

Having a thriving environment is essential in maintaining the lives of humans, plants, and animals. Unfortunately, our resources are being depleted at an alarming rate. There are several problems with our environment caused by land and air pollution. This is not just an environmental problem, however, it’s a huge social problem as well.

In today’s society, humans are all about convenience. Unfortunately, this comes at a major cost to the environment. Transportation such as cars and planes for instance, emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These gases poke holes in the ozone layer, trapping heat in the atmosphere (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.). In 2012, greenhouse gas emissions from transportation contributed around 28% of the total U.S greenhouse gas emissions, making transportation the 2nd largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.). Sadly, greenhouse gases cause global warming. Some of the effects of global warming include: an increase or decrease in rainfall, negative effects on human health, changes in forestry and ecosystems, and potential impacts on our energy supply (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.).  Electricity is the number one contributor of U.S. gas emissions. Unfortunately, U.S greenhouse gas emissions from electricity have increased 11% since 1990 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.). Homes and commercial buildings use large amounts of energy for heating, cooling, lighting, and other functions. We face tremendous resource dilemmas because people tend to think selfishly instead of for the greater good. This is exactly how we deplete resources and continue to do so. We are consuming resources faster than we can replace them. As a society, we should use more energy generated from wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal sources instead of nonrenewable resources such as coal, oil, and natural gas which also further harm the environment (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.).

Land pollution is another major problem posing a threat to our environment. In 2012, Americans generated about 251 million tons of Municipal Solid Waste (trash) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.). It’s important for consumers to reduce, reuse, and recycle if we want any shot at keeping our environment stable. One way we can do this is source reduction. This can be done by designing products to reduce the amount of waste that will later need to be thrown away (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.). An example of this is water bottles being made out of less plastic. Many companies that bottle water, now do so using less plastic than before, therefore leading to less plastic being used and potentially thrown away in landfills. Another way we can cut down on land pollution is by recycling. Instead of throwing out items that can be reused (such as the plastic water bottles mentioned), it’s important for our society to recycle them so we can reuse them later and prevent the depletion of valuable resources (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.).

At my campus, there are several attempts being made to combat our school’s contribution to these environmental problems. For instance, in most buildings the lights are motion-activated. If someone forgets to turn off a light, the lights will turn off automatically instead of wasting electricity when it’s not being used. The gymnasium at my school does not have motion-activated lights, however, there are signs above light switches asking people to turn the lights off when not in use. Despite being a small request, students and faculty take responsibility and turn the lights off in rooms when no one is in them. My school also provides several sidewalks and public transportation to students. Although, it’s not a perfect solution, public transportation is better than people driving separately, which would add more greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

Finally, not only are students and faculty encouraged to recycle paper and plastics (bins for paper and plastics are provided next to all trash cans on campus), students are only allotted a certain amount of paper per semester that may be printed. This forces students to think wisely about what they need to print and reduces paper consumption on campus overall. Protecting the environment is directly linked to applied social psychology because we influence the environment tremendously. Humans hold the power to change the environment- by protecting it or depleting it. Can you think of any other ways campuses can “go green”? Are there any ways that we can encourage people to be more conscious about the depletion of resources?

Resources

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (n.d). Muncipal Solid Waste. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/index.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (n.d). Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/electricity.html

Uncategorized — 11 Comments
04
Feb 14

Environment Psych 424

A major issue in today’s dwindling environment is the lack of clean water which is not only a problem because of its obvious repercussions being a necessity to sustain life but also causes detrimental effects on the health of a human being. We’ve seen water shortage problems in the United States ranging from simple droughts to serious water shortages in developing countries where often times there is no local water and residents must walk several miles a day to carry water that is not clean enough for them to drink in the first place. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2014) reports that less than one percent of the world’s water is available for humans which means much of the remaining water is not suitable for humans and one of the main reasons is the water is not clean enough for consumption. The World Heath Organization (2004) claims the second highest cause of death in the world is infectious and parasitic disease and water that is not properly sanitized can be a major contributor to this issue through bacteria such as E.coli, salmonella, schistosoma, cholera and hepatitis A (Charity:Water, 2014). Additionally, the World Health Organization (2014) believes that a large portion of global disease can be eradicated through better means of water sanitation and improving the water supply.
This is an issue of great interest to myself and my husband as we are involved in investing in projects to build wells and educate communities on sanitation and hygiene in developing countries. Business such as Charity:Water, Pure Charity and Miir have all dedicated time, effort and resources to go out to developing nations such as Boitian, Ethiopia, Uganda etc. Charity:water’s website states “800 million people don’t have access to clean drinking water. That’s 1 in 9 of us.” This becomes a big applied social psychology issue because the strain of lack of available water is being put on families which in turn causes physical, emotional and psychological distress. Additionally, because more time spent walking to and from collecting water, mothers and children are kept from other forms of employment, school, and their families (Charity:Water, 2014). Charity:Water (2014) reports women and children are put in great risk during their walks for walk due to harassment and sexual assault. So not only are individuals faced with lack of a life necessity but many are threatened with disease from contamination, sexual assault, being unable to provide for their families, taken away from work or school to collect water etc; it literally is a life or death situation and the life is not of any type of acceptable quality.
Miir is another excellent company dedicated to the war with water. Their intervention includes selling specially crafted re-usable water bottles with the goal “one4one” – for every bottle purchased, one person is given clean water for an entire year (Miir, 2014). Additionally, with the growth of their business they have been able to build 12 wells in developing countries which is an excellent contribution (Miir, 2014). To date, Charity:Water (2014) has been able to fund 9,458 water projects, provide clean water to 3.5 million in 20 different countries. From an applied social psychology perspective, these companies have clearly focused in on effective interventions. They’ve established the problem, designed an intervention, successfully put that intervention into place and evaluate their progress yearly. While these companies and many others have done an amazing job at tackling the water issue, one has to wonder about the effects on psychological well-being that will follow. With available water and wells built within communities, the strain to collect water lessens the strain on women and children (both physically and mentally), which removes them from potential dangerous situations, families are no longer constantly concerned about the bacteria in the water that could kill their loved ones or make them gravely ill, children can focus on their education and women can find other forms of paid employment in the community…the list goes on. These positive effects contribute to an overall stronger sense of happiness and a better life quality which in turn will positively affect the psychological well-being of individuals.
The problem we now face is finding a way to deal with the water issues within our own country. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency predicts that at minimum 36 states are approaching water shortage issues and this number will continue to grow. Americans are estimated to use 400 gallons of water every day for an average size family of four, (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.). This is absurd and yet the frightening reality we live in. The U.S. EPA has put into place an intervention entitled “WaterSense” in order to educate Americans on ways to reduce water usage and save money. While this is good progress, will it be enough?
References
Charity:Water. (2014). Why water. Retrieved from http://www.charitywater.org/whywater/.
Miir. (2014). One4One: Our model. Retrieved from http://www.miir.com/Articles.asp?ID=329.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (n.d). Water Supply in the U.S. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/pubs/supply.html.
World Health Organization (2004). Part 2: Causes of death. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GBD_report_2004update_part2.pdf.
World Health Organization. (2014). Burden of disease and cost-effectiveness estimates. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/burden/en/index.html.

Skip to toolbar