Archives

Uncategorized — No Comments
14
Sep 23

The Green Awakening: Social Psychology for Environmental Crises

Sustainability and “green-thinking” are staple topics in social media hashtags and the shock-value news headlines networks use when politicians and celebrity shenanigans are lukewarm for the week. The environmental crises we face today, such as climate change are largely interlinked due to their anthropogenic causes. Among individuals who engage with social media platforms, Gen Z and Millennials are encountering a greater volume of climate change-related content online. While this demonstrates more communication about these issues is occurring, the majority express the belief that various stakeholders, both in the public and private sectors, are failing to take sufficient measures to mitigate and reduce climate impacts (Nadeem, 2023). The only way to address and resolve them is through the intervention of changing human behavior, but human behavior isn’t always quick to change (Murray et al., 2015) With Earth’s clock ticking how can we expedite this process? 

Psychological research can enhance the effectiveness of policies aimed at promoting resource conservation and ecosystem protection. Fundamental aspects of psychological science include its exploration of human behavior and decision-making. By researching motivations, biases, and cognitive processes we gain a deeper understanding of the human actions that are the core of environmental issues, such as resource consumption and waste production. Research pertaining to social influences on environmental protection has shown that disseminating information alone is insufficient to induce behavioral change (Clayton et al., 2013). It will not be enough to simply create ad campaigns and infographics to educate; environmental messages must be framed to align with people’s values and identities, in addition to tapping into social influences and norms, which can enhance their willingness to engage in eco-friendly behaviors. 

Steck and Vleck (2009) outline four steps to changing behaviors for environmental benefit:  1.) Choose a specific behavior to change; 2). Examine the behavior’s underlying factors ; 3.) Design and implement an intervention; 4.) Evaluate the intervention. The theory of planned behavior suggests that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control influence an individual’s intention to engage in a specific behavior. Applying this theory to environmental conservation, barriers can be identified and motivators that influence people’s decisions regarding actions like recycling, reducing energy consumption, or supporting eco-friendly policies (2013). For example, providing individuals with feedback on their energy consumption or conservation efforts can motivate them to make further improvements. Additionally, well-designed incentives, such as tax credits for eco-friendly choices or rewards for conservation achievements, can also drive positive environmental actions (2013).

The role and significance of human behaviors and responses in the context of environmental preservation cannot be understated or overlooked. There are ample opportunities for the collaboration of conservation professionals and psychologists to work together to proactively address pressing environmental challenges. The Digital Age has given us the ability to reach wider audiences than ever before and with the right strategies its positive effects on the environment can be maximized for a new “green awakening.” 

Citations 

Clayton, S., Litchfield, C., & Geller, E. S. (2013). Psychological science, conservation, and environmental sustainability. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(7), 377–382. https://doi.org/10.1890/120351

Murray, J., Remes, P., Ilboudo, R., Belem, M., Salouka, S., Snell, W., Wood, C. E., Lavoie, M., Deboise, L., & Head, R. (2015). The Saturation + Approach to Behavior Change: Case Study of a Child Survival Radio Campaign in Burkina Faso. Global Health, Science and Practice, 3(4), 544–556. https://doi.org/10.9745/ghsp-d-15-00049

Nadeem, R. (2023, May 22). Gen Z, millennials stand out for climate change activism, social media engagement with issue | Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center Science & Society. Retrieved September 12, 2023, from https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021/05/26/gen-z-millennials-stand-out-for-climate-change-activism-social-media-engagement-with-issue/

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

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/

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 — 3 Comments
04
Feb 18

Environmental effects on Human Behavior

It is widely known that the environment and settings surrounding a person can have great impacts on a person’s behavior. Factors including lighting, noise, and temperature are all variables of an environment. Relevant to this idea, I’ve often wondered why I could never focus or study at my house unless it is completely silent, the entire house is tidy and clean, candles are lit, and I’m wearing cozy clothes. Why am I like this I ask myself? Though this may sound so weird to some people, I’m sure there are others out there who are like this. People who cannot focus in their home (or anywhere else) unless it is their perfect environment. Everything needs to be very “Zen”, if I may say, in order for me to fully focus.  In our text this week there was a very interesting yet also kind of odd example of how people’s environment can greatly affect their behaviors.

“The Built Environment” in chapter 13 of our text (Schneider, Gruman, Coults, 2012) the example provided is about an apartment complex that was built in Missouri in 1954. The apartment design was considered to have highly adequate vandal-resistant features and had a very open, simplistic and individual layout in which no space had been wasted. The apartment complex design was called the “Pruitt-Igoe” design and it permitted 12,000 residents to reside here. This new design had been created with the hopes of decreasing vandalism and crime, and also improving the deteriorating inner-city housing.

Something the project constructors of the new complex did to create a spacious feel was invest in elevators which only stopped on every third floor so most tenants had to walk up at least 1 to 2 floors in order to reach their apartment. The buildings were 11 stories high and this elevator design caused much more traffic in the stairwells. Something the project constructors clearly didn’t consider was that more people and traffic in stairwells can become a negative environment for people. Shortly after the opening of the apartment complex, problems began, all because the construction designs failed to understand the impacts of environment on human behavior. A very common problem in the building was known as “stairwell crime”. After only a mere 18 years the building had to be demolished because of how bad the environment had become once again.

Although the Pruitt-Igoe design example is a rather extreme example of environment on behavior, it does still send a message. The physical layouts and designs of buildings and spaces have many different variables within them that can have unimaginable impacts on how its residents behave. For me if I were living in that apartment in Missouri in the 1950’s, I’d be scared out of my mind to even open my door. That particular environment would have that effect on me.

Another funny example of environment I was just reminded of that happened in my life was the time I was staying at this really ritzy hotel in New York City. The one night I had been craving a tray of New York style pizza, I just needed to have it. I placed my order and waited for delivery. About 20 minutes later my room phone rings and the delivery guy is downstairs. I ask the front desk if they can send him up and tell me no he is not permitted to because the elevator uses your room key in order to function. I say oh ok no problem and I head down to the lobby. Mind you I’m having myself a relaxing night while in NYC, I’m wearing a hoodie and sweatpants, my hair is in a messy bun, and I have no make-up on, I’m really just lounging tonight. When I reached the lobby, I cannot even fully describe to you how bad I felt. It was about 7:30 pm and all of the hotels tenants were in the lobby dressed to the 9! Literally these people around me looked like they may have been millionaires. Women were in ball gowns, men were wearing tuxedos, and their children were dressed in their own best attire as well. It wasn’t one of those moment where I was just feeling self-conscious and thought everyone was looking at me. Every one really was looking at me. I had made eye contact with about 15 different people as I walked toward my pizza delivery guy. I felt as if I was truly putting a damper on everyone’s night. The strangers had looked at me as if their environments had just been negatively affected by my appearance and activity. In turn, this environment that I was presently in had a very negative impact on me as well! My cheeks became very flushed, my heart was going a million miles an hour, and I was so embarrassed. I gave the guy the money, and quickly took my pizza back up to the 7th floor where for the rest of the night I felt very sensitive about my image, and I inadvertently stress ate my entire tray of pizza. A person’s environment is key to their moods and behaviors. Also design flaws such as requiring hotel room cards in order to operate elevators can influence human moods and behaviors such as the example of when I had to retrieve my pizza and I became the laughing stock of a ritzy upscale hotel.

 

References

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

 

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 — 2 Comments
25
Sep 16

No more fresh water for you

For this week blog I will be discussing an article from nytimes.com titled, “In Sign of Warming, 1,600 Years of Ice in Andes melted in 25 years” by Justin Gillis. The article is about the world’s largest tropical ice sheet; the Quelccaya ice cap of Peru and the rate in which ice is melting, in addition to what is being revealed. Lonnie G Thompson, the Ohio State University glaciologist, along with her team has been studying the Quelccaya ice caps for more than 10 years.

Plants that were trapped under ice for thousands of years are now being exposed due to the rapid melting of the Quelccaya cap. These plants were dated by a radioactive form of carbon in plant tissue that decays at a known rate; giving scientist a new precise method of determining the history of the ice sheet’s margins. Several years ago, Dr. Thompson and her team found plants that were about 4700 years old. Now with an additional thousand feet of melting, Dr. Thompson and her team are now finding plants that are 6300 years old.  If we subtract the age of the new plants from the age of the older found plants we see a difference of 1600 years.

Although finding plant species that were thought to be long gone is very exciting, the rate at which the caps are melting is very concerning. Mathias Vuille, a climate scientist at the State University at Albany in New York said, “the ice may not go quick because it is so much ice, but we may have already locked ourselves into a situation where we are committed to losing that ice”

After reading this article I cannot help but wonder what this means for the people of this region. According to the article 50% of the water supply to the people of Lima will be gone if the Quelccaya caps completely melt. I cannot help but wonder why don’t we have technology that would stop the ice from melting?

 

 

“In Sign of Warming, 1,600 Years of Ice in Andes melted in 25 years” by Justin Gillis. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/world/americas/1600-years-of-ice-in-perus-andes-melted-in-25-years-scientists-say.html

Uncategorized — 6 Comments
15
Sep 16

[Env. Blog] Fun Fact! There’s a day each year when the planet’s officially done with our sh*t.

Look out your window. I don’t know about you, but from my downtown window I see more green than grey – more nature than man, by a long shot. Maybe I’m in the minority. Maybe it’s one of the perks of living here in the Evergreen state. Still, watching the creatures and trees grow stronger and sturdier each day, it’s hard to imagine that anything could truly put a dent in nature’s ability to thrive.

That really couldn’t be farther from correct.

Monday, August 8th, was 2016’s Earth Overshoot Day. Don’t let the capitalized ‘Day’ fool you, this isn’t a holiday. It’s the exact day each year in which “humanity’s demand for ecological resources and services in a given year exceeds what Earth can regenerate in that year,” according to Global Footprint Network. Any resources we use after that, down to a single salmon dinner, is creating a defecit that our planet legitimately cannot recover from.

Pretty scary, right? After all, that’s almost five full months in which we’re overspending our planet’s resources… and the vast majority are doing this entirely in ignorance of any kind of issue. Raise your hand if you’ve never heard of Earth Overshoot Day. No, you’re not in trouble – the point is that if you, a decently well-educated and self-aware university student, hadn’t heard of it, that speaks volumes for the awareness of the uneducated masses.

Continue reading →

Skip to toolbar