Category: Civic Issue

Over the course of this blog, many environmental issues have been discussed, as well as their respective legislative counterparts (or lack-thereof). For example, recall the first blog topic: fracking. The controversy that fuels the debate of hydraulic fracking is based on whether or not people believe it will cause more economic gain than environmental damage. However, this issue fulfills a requirement that many do not even realize must be fulfilled in the first place: people believed that fracking existed. One might think that this is quite obvious – of course fracking is real. It can be seen and its effects can be felt. However, this is far from the truth in context of this next issue.

It is nearly impossible to argue what steps to take to prevent an issue when a large majority of people refuse to believe that said issue exists in the first place. Global warming is exactly that issue.

To fully understand the global warming, it is necessary to look at the factors that cause it. The process known as the Greenhouse Effect is the driving force being global warming. The Greenhouse Effect in and of itself is natural and necessary for life on Earth to exist. Without the Greenhouse Effect, the Earth would be approximately 30 degrees (Celsius) cooler, thus making it uninhabitable. Sunlight passes through the Earth’s atmosphere, gets absorbed by the planet, then reflected back as heat. Greenhouse gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone, are responsible for trapping some of this heat and subsequently keeping the Earth’s climate habitable (Greenhouse Effect).

Now, what does the Greenhouse Effect have to do with climate change and global warming? Most industrial processes, or any process that released carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, both cause more heat to be trapped in the atmosphere and deplete ozone, the gas responsible for preventing most harmful radiation from reaching the planet (Greenhouse Gasses). As more of these harmful gasses enter the atmosphere, more radiation from the sun reaches the Earth in addition to the overall atmosphere’s temperature rising.

Now that the Greenhouse Effect and its dependence on greenhouse gasses has been explained, it is time to discuss how this can negatively affect the planet. There are essentially two negative results that can come from climate change. One of these, as previously discussed, is the rising of Earth’s temperature. The issue with rising temperatures is that many species cannot adapt to such changes as quickly as they are occurring. Even slight shifts in climate can be lethal to a species living in the affected area. The other negative outcome of climate change is rising sea levels, which stems from the melting of polar ice caps and ice sheets. When talking about rising sea levels, it is often heard that they will grow by “only a handful” of inches. This, however, is a lot more drastic than it may seem, and can eventually engulf coastal cities, islands, and anything near shores (National Geographic). If that effect still seems too indirect, global warming can also create unpredictable and dramatic weather patterns, such as an increase in storms and even droughts.

There is a plethora of evidence proving the existence of climate change and dismissing the possibility of it being considered a hoax. Factors such as rising global temperatures, rising ocean temperatures, shrinking ice sheets, rising sea levels, and an increase in recorded extreme events have all been catalogued and can be traced back to global warming (NASA).

Despite this abundance of hard evidence, a trend has made itself present. About 20% of the United States population believes that there its not a substantial amount of evidence to back up the existence of climate change, and an additional 31% of Americans are convinced that global warming is a natural process that has not been affected by humans (Pew Research). Therefor, half of the population is not convinced that we need to do anything to slow climate change in the first place. This, of course, makes it difficult to pass legislation that actively seeks to prevent a rising global climate. Although there has been progress made in the past, such as the passing of the Clean Air Act, first issued in 1970, which prevented the ozone-damaging chemical species known as chlorofluorocarbons from being used in aerosol spray cans, there still remains controversy with the issue (Scientific American). A prime example of this is the President’s various tweets, such as “…it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS of dollars to protect against. Bundle up!” or, “It’s really cold outside, they are calling it a major freeze, weeks ahead of normal. Man, we could use a big fat dose of global warming!” (NY Times). This in and of itself shows that the current government is not keen on combating global warming, and is exemplified by the U.S. pulling out of the Paris Agreement, which was formed to, yes, combat climate change (Paris Agreement).

Climate change is a real issue, and one that should be addressed sooner rather than later. All previous civic issue blog posts can be in some way related back to climate change. Why do you think people choose to believe Global Warming is a hoax?

When you take a look at Earth from a spacial perspective, it is hard to ignore what covers the surface of the planet. Earth is coated in oceans and seas, making up about 71 percent Earth’s surface (says the United States government). Water, as you may know, is essential to life and, seeing that is makes up an incredible percentage of our home, it seems as though there should be few issues in keeping a clean supply of water readily available for use.

However, as we already generally are aware, that is far from the truth. Garbage, waste, and other unwanted material is often simply tossed into lakes, rivers, or oceans. Water pollution is a growing issue that threatens all bodies of water – whether its local water sources that are used for drinking or large bodies of water that host ecosystems of fish and aquatic wildlife. Water is used for much more than just consumption, however. Water is used for energy, to host ecosystems, and for industrial functions, as well. Polluting water supplies is not the only issue, also. Conserving water and limiting wasteful usage is an important factor in maintaining a healthy supply for the ever-growing population of the world.

Water pollution comes in many shapes and forms. As mentioned earlier, there are various types of water that can be polluted, and also varying types of pollutants that lead to different negative outcomes. One highly common form of pollution is groundwater contamination. Groundwater is one of the primary sources of drinking water, so this contamination can be especially detrimental to plant-life and even people that frequent that water source. The pollutant in this case is commonly chemical. Such chemicals that infect groundwater include pesticides, fertilizers, and oil/petroleum products (check here). There are plenty of recorded cases of groundwater infection. One such case took place in Washington County. On a farm that grew heirloom tomatoes and grapes, the pesticides and fertilizers used caused the groundwater to contain 2,600 times the allowed level of arsenic and well over the acceptable levels of mercury and selenium (other stats and cases here).

Another variety of water pollution is contamination of bodies of water, like rivers, lakes, and oceans. This type of water is less used as a source of drinking water, but still hosts aquatic life and can affect areas surrounding it. There is still able to be chemical pollution in bodies of water (BP oil spill), and many times waste is simply tossed into the nearest body of water. In India, for example, eighty percent of the nation’s sewage – untreated – flows directly into rivers and channels that are sources of drinking water for some (India water crisis). On top of that, garbage including plastics, paper, and metal are often disposed of in these same water sources. This country is not the only offender in this field, though. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a massive pile of trash that has accumulated in the Pacific Ocean. It spans an area about the size of Texas, or 700,000 square kilometers (yeah that’s huge). The currents of the Pacific Ocean cause trash in these waters to accumulate in specific areas. This is not specific to the Pacific; The Atlantic and Indian Oceans have similar anomalies.

With such an important resource being contaminated at an alarming rate, it makes sense that there is legislation in place to combat further pollution in this field. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act was first implemented in 1942 (here). This was a fairly relaxed policy, and it was not until the Clean Water Act of 1972 that the United States government truly took action to secure the cleanliness of surface waters. Among some of the acts regulations, it made it illegal to discharge pollutants into navigable waters and set basic standards for wastewater released by industries. There have been significant reforms in the level of pesticides allowed on farms and a decrease in harmful chemicals released through agriculture. However, as mentioned in a previous civic issue blog, increased (unsafe) mining and drilling for fossil fuels could lead to further contaminants entering bodies of water.

Water – arguably our planets most valuable resource – although renewable, is facing the danger of becoming polluted beyond use. Although there are some (honestly, very few) policies in place to regulate water purity, it is a field of growing concern (take India’s water crisis) especially in an age where population around the world is growing at a rate that requires more and more fresh water to be sustainable. Water might be everywhere, but clean water is getting rarer by the day.

The deliberation that I attended, besides my own of course, was the deliberation of the other group in class, “Unpreach Free Speech?” The purpose of this deliberation was to discuss the lines that separate free speech as opposed to hate speech, whether or not we should allow hate speech to be grouped with free speech, and if not, how we should prevent hate speech from spreading.

The deliberation was broken into three approaches that were centered around core American values. The first approach was focused on liberty and fairness. In this approach, the deliberation group spoke about the potential benefits of using, as they phrased it, a “laissez-faire approach” when dealing with free speech. They feel that the Penn State administration should keep their hands off of free speech, and let the community and campus self-regulate what is good and what is wrong. They do specify that if speech evolves into violence, proper action would still be taken to punish the offender. However, discussion arose and said that in certain cases, speech should be prevented if it eludes to the potential of violence. This discussion actually led very nicely into the second approach.

The second approached focused on the values of safety and security. In this approach, the deliberation group discussed when it was appropriate for enforcement to be employed to restrict speech. One of the cases mentioned was when Penn State President Eric Barron prevented Richard Spencer, a well-known white supremacist, from coming to speak at the school. The deliberators also mentioned that, in their approach, they would take the instances in a case-by-case basis, thus not setting any strict or definite rules. Most people agreed on the case-by-case basis aspect of the approach. However, there was controversy when discussing what defines free speech versus hate speech. People generally believed that if the speech is intentionally egging people on and fueling them with anger, the situation is potentially dangerous and thus can be shut down with the help of enforcement. People also found an issue that it is difficult to be reactive to a situation if it is done spontaneously. For example, the Richard Spencer incident was easy to prevent because Penn State had time to evaluate the situation and respond appropriately. Instances, such as people gathering around the HUB and shouting their extreme opinions, leaves little time to react to the situation.

The final approach focused in on the values of community and progress. The approach focuses on how free speech embodies the idea that people can say whatever they want, but Penn State creates an atmosphere of inclusivity and diversity which often causes people with strong opinions to keep their opinions to themselves, thus “eliminating” their free speech .The discussion led to whether or not we should consider the members of the community of state college outside of the student body when considering free speech regulations.

Overall, people seemed to favor the second approach more than the other listed approaches. Approach two led to much more diverse discussion with tangible, feasible solutions, unlike the other two solutions that remained somewhat open-ended. One similarity that connected many of the approaches was the fact that many of the solutions depended on bystander intervention. For example, in approach two, reacting to case-by-case instances would be much easier if bystanders reported spontaneous occurrences rather than waiting for authorities to locate the issue by themselves. When discussing the voices that were under-represented, many types of people were mentioned. A white-supremacy group was invited to the deliberation, but did not show up. Their opinions would have been quite interesting pertaining to free speech and hate speech. Other under-represented voices were members of the permanent state college community, and the campus and state college police force.

Overall, I felt very enlightened after participating this debate. I was exposed to a lot of viewpoints, many that I would not have considered if I were thinking own this issue alone.

National Geographic works tirelessly to expose the issues plaguing the world through beautiful cinematography, stunning photographs, and captivating articles. One project, lead by photographer Joel Sartore, is known as the Photo Ark. The goal of this initiative is to photographically catalogue every species of animal located in sanctuaries and zoos, and hopefully the world. What Sartore hopes this project will lead to is an increased awareness of endangered or threatened species (read about the Photo Ark here).

 

There has been an ever-growing concern about the fates of endangered species. In today’s society especially, there is increased industrialization, deforestation, and destruction of environment in the hunt of depleting nonrenewable resources (see previous post for an example of the latter). There are many facts and figures thrown around concerning the actual rate of extinction of species. It is impossible to know this rate definitively, considering scientists are constantly discovering new animal species, therefor we do not know the total number of species currently existing. However, we are able to make educated guesses as to how quickly species are dying off. Experts say, accounting for undiscovered species, there can range anywhere from 2 million to 100 million unique animal species total on earth. They also believe that between 0.01 and 0.1 percent of the earth’s species disappear year (check those facts here). This means, in a best case scenario (100 million species, 0.01 percent loss), 10,000 species go extinct each year, reaching total extinction in roughly 10,000 years. In the worst case (2 million species, 0.1 percent loss), 2,000 species go extinct each year, reaching total extinction in only 1,000 years.

There is, and has been, legislation put into place designed to combat the loss of endangered animals in the United States. Dating as far back as the early 1900s, during Teddy Roosevelt’s administration, species have been protected as long as they were within national wildlife refugees. It was not until 1969 when the Endangered Species Conservation Act made the importation of both endangered and threatened animals illegal. This law was greatly strengthened some years later, when the Endangered Species Act of 1973 was approved. In this new and improved act, all endangered and threatened species were protected by law, as well as the ecosystems that their livelihoods depend on (read up on these acts here). This was a massive step towards animal conservation in the United States; protecting wildlife was now able to be enforced by law. Since then, there have ben countless amendments to these acts, a majority of which have only strengthened the cause for protected endangered species.

Everyone is well aware that, still, industrialization is ruining the livelihoods of countless animals. Across Africa and South America, deforestation has run rampant. Nearly every country within these continents has lost over 1,000 hectares of forest since 1990. America, actually, is one of the countries that has actually seen an. improvement in the number of hectares of forest within their borders, rising from 298,000 to 303,000 hectares (check out the big list of countries and their deforestation rates here). Other factors, like toxic mine runoff, garbage dumping into oceans, and introducing invasive species into specific ecosystems, can all threaten the sustainability of any given animal.

Now, those deforestation stats probably don’t mean much to you – they’re just numbers that were once bigger and are now smaller. So, to put into perspective exactly what happens when those numbers decrease, here are some species that went extinct just this past year:

 

 

Obviously, there is an opposing side to this argument, and as is typical with environmental issues, it deals with economic benefit. Poaching, although illegal, is one reason many animals are threatened (it is the main cause of the extinction of the fishing cat). The government is responsible for rolling back many environmental policies that can pose immediate threats to wildlife. Some of these new policies include allowing coal mining companies to dump debris in local streams, rejecting a ban on potentially harmful insecticide, and rejecting a ban on hunting predators located in Alaskan wildlife refugees (see other policies overturned here).

Protected animals and there environments is a very complex issue with many components (should the hunting of threatened animals be allowed if it is an integral part of a people’s culture? Does trophy hunting help or harm the animals involved? Where should waste be dumped from, say, mines and power plants as to not harm any ecosystem?). It is true, however, that at this rate, and a potentially increasing one, the number of species on earth will be dropping like flies. This might seem inconsequential to us; so what if some lizard I never knew existed in the first place ceases to exist? The fall of these species can be viewed as a trend. When species that you do care about become endangered (take bees, for example, which are dying off faster than ever previously recorded) it might be too late to take proper action. Consider how what we do now affects the future of those that don’t have a voice, and what actions are reasonable and feasible to prevent the decay of our planet and its inhabitants.

Fracking. It’s a term that most of you have probably heard thrown around in the media recently. You probably know that it has something to do with drilling for fossil fuels, or something along those lines. But do you know what exactly fracking entails?

Fracking is “the process of drilling down into the earth” in order to locate pockets of natural gas. These pockets can be large, but extremely thin, spanning only a few millimeters across. After locating these pockets, a high pressure mixture of water, sand, and chemicals are pumped through the pipe that has been drilled into the ground, which then forces the gas to exit the pockets and travel back through the pipe to the surface. Here’s a video that explains it a little better than me: video.

Of course, as is typical with any method of gathering resources from the earth, there are two opposing sides with very differing opinions on fracking.

One side of the argument supports the fracking industry. Fracking, being a fairly new method of extraction fossil fuels, has improved the United State’s energy independence. Dating as far back as the presidency of Richard Nixon, the United States was becoming more and more dependent on foreign oil to fulfill its energy needs. In 2005, the country hit an all-time high on dependence for foreign oil. More than half – 60 percent, to be exact – of energy consumption was reliant on oil imports (link to those stats). At this point, the United States was desperate to find a solution to their oil import crisis. Around this time, fracking was being implemented as a method of drilling for fossil fuel reserves. Fracking proved effective, and the United States was able to locate and extract more natural gas reserves than previous decades. As seen by the graph below, the United States was regaining energy independency following 2005.

The chart depicts energy independency constantly increasing into more recent years. This is because, as stated in the video, fracking is a technology that is constantly improving. The technology and processes involved in drilling for and extracting natural gas reserves is becoming more efficient, thus further increasing our independence on foreign fuel imports.

The supporters of hydraulic fracking (the more technical term for “fracking”) realize the economic benefits of this technology. One of the main economic pros of fracking is the fact that significantly drops the price of natural gas. Compared to the price of natural gas prior to 2013, the cost of natural gas has dropped 47 percent. That is a very appealing number for consumers of natural gas – a price drop of almost half. Not only are consumers experience economic benefits, so too are industries surrounding fracking. Commercial, industrial, and electric power consumers experience an economic benefit of about $74 billion yearly. These benefits are predicted to rise as fracking increases both in widespread use and productivity (fact check those numbers here).

Despite all of these economic benefits that experts rave about caused by fracking, there still remain those who distrust fracking. The advocates of the anti-fracking argument fear for environmental safety and damage that can result from hydraulic fracking. One of the obvious arguments is that the entire purpose of fracking puts more fossil fuels into circulation, when in fact these advocates want renewable energy to be a main source of fuel for America. This is unrealistic, however, since much of the energy in America is still reliant on fossil fuels. The actual process of fracking produces an abundance of methane gas. It was calculated that a group of wells in Weld County, Colorado, produced emissions equal to those of between 1 and 3 million cars.

Another fear of environmentalists is that fracking will contaminate ground water, or water reserves used for drinking. This was the case in Pavillion, Wyoming, as determined by the EPA. Other concerns include oil spills, and even threats of earthquakes triggered by drillings (link to environmental facts).

Recent government policy has revoked policies put into place by the Obama administration that restrain fracking from trespassing onto federal and Native American lands. It seems that our government is taking actions that suggest a future defined by an increased production of fossil fuels. The question is, is it worth repealing legislation that previously protected designated areas of land? Are the environmental costs worth the economic benefits? It is a topic with a strong debate on both sides, and probably one that will be debated for years to come. If fracking technology improves to the point where there is little chance of environmental harm, or renewable energy becomes the norm, then the debate would reach a natural conclusion. However, for now, only time will tell what the majority prefers in light of the ever-improving process of hydraulic fracking.