Month: February 2019

You may have heard about the massive number of trees that have been cut down in recent years. Due to the demand for wood and lumber, companies have come into forests and slashed down quite a sizable number of trees. In some places, the forests look unrecognizable; the once rich, green vegetation has turned into a somewhat barren environment. As we may all know, cutting down trees and clearing forests poses a severe threat to our environment.

First of all, plants and trees play a large role in absorbing carbon dioxide. As increased deforestation takes place, there will be fewer trees to take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen. Therefore, this will result in an increase of green house gases in the atmosphere, which in turn contributes to climate change. Also, the purpose of deforestation is often for farming. Land is cleared in order for crops and livestock to have space. When this occurs, an abundant amount of water is required to sustain this farmland. Because of this, water is being taken out of its natural environment, which disrupts the water cycle and encourages drought.

After further consideration, it is also important to remember that timber and wood are finite resources. There are not enough trees that can replace those that have been cut down. Over time, the revenue that can be gained from obtaining additional timber may be insignificant compared to the cost of harming the environment. The rate at which trees is so rapid, that it is predicted that all rain forests may be lost by the year 2100. Although this is the worst case scenario, it provides a good illustration about just how much damage is being done to our natural habitat in a relatively short amount of time.

Probably one of the most emphasized points about the harm of deforestation lies in the idea of losing many of the unique species that call the forests their homes. Not only do we lose a source of oxygen, we also lose the mammals, reptiles and birds that make up the ecosystem. As a result, many animals have had to relocate, these new homes are not as suitable. In the long run, this poses a severe extinction threat for many animals who call rainforests and other wooded places their homes. In my opinion, this point is the one where people can understand the effects instantly. When animals are pushed off of their natural habitat, more of them are at risk of being placed on the endangered species list. When this occurs, people realize the importance of protecting these animals from extinction. At the end of the day, we share the Earth with other organisms and living things. It is only natural to feel that it is our responsibility to respect their environment and well-being. More than ever, scientists and the general community have made efforts to prevent animals from becoming lost forever. With the help of mass media, this result of deforestation has been highlighted over and over again.

Now, time for the good news. Deforestation does have positive effects for business. Besides clearing land for farming, clearing trees provide more space for infrastructure and road systems. The population is expected to keep increasing exponentially (more than 10 million people expected to be living on the earth by the year 2050), so more space needs to be cleared out to account for this expected congestion. More living spaces and dwellings for people can only be created by clearing more land. Also, this cleared land allows more farming to take place, which will be essential for this growing population. In order to feed a larger number of people, more crops need to be produced, so deforestation would make sense as a reasonable solution.

Furthermore, the trees provide lumber and other wood products. Paper, toilet paper, and other essential items can be made from these cut down trees. It is no wonder that trees are needed for people to use common household products. With the selling of these products, more revenue can be brought into local and regional areas, which in turn stimulates the economy. Additionally, forest clearing provides jobs for many workers. Some people may not have other ways to support their families, so working for a company that clears forests is a way for them to bring in income. Additionally, deforestation allows them to further bring generate revenue if the cleared land is used for farming. In a sense, these kinds of jobs allow workers to receive a base salary to take care of their families along with potentially providing other avenues to bring in more money.

In conclusion, deforestation is a complicated issue. Although there are great environmental repercussions, the value that clearing forests has on business is quite great. This is another example where the solution is not as clear. As a society we want to protect our environment, but we need to make sure that people have jobs, updated infrastructure, and enough food. What do you think? Are there environmental-friendly ways to provide for a growing population? Is there an alternative that would still allow business to prosper?  If so, the world could be a greener place – both environmentally and financially.

The controversy regarding fracking has picked up in recent years, especially in the United States. Often a topic in environmental and even political debates, fracking has received mixed opinions.

So what exactly is fracking? Fracking or hydraulic fracking is the process of drilling a well into the earth to extract natural gas. Once a large enough well is created, oil companies often shoot a chemical mixture that includes water, sand, and other materials down to the shale (or rock). This is carried out at high pressure and drilling can take place both vertically and horizontally. At the end, this results in the gas being pushed back up through the well and above the surface, where it can be extracted.

Fracking has been most notably revived in the Permian region in Texas. In recent years, it has been considered a gold mine for oil. As a result, oil companies have turned  their attention to drilling in the Permian and have their fracking efforts rewarded in the form of large amounts of revenue. For example, Apache Corp has taken advantage of the Permian basin (which spans 59 Texas counties) by digging more than fifty horizontal wells. There have even found a way to reduce the cost of treating the water that flows back from fracking – a measly cost of $0.29 per barrel compared to $2.50 per barrel if another third party were to intervene. However, the practice of fracking has caused millions of gallons of water to be used. A typical fracking has the ability to use 5 millions gallons of water. This is an astronomical amount, especially when one realizes that this is equivalent to watering a golf course for about three and a half weeks.

This brings up the question: How harmful is fracking for the environment and people in general? Besides the excessive amount of water that is used in fracking, it was also found by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that hydraulic fracking can contaminate drinking water. Due to the increase methane release from this process, some citizens have reported foul tap water – water that was bubbly or flammable. Also, it is uncertain what exactly is being shot down into the Earth by these companies. In fact, about one in five of the chemicals in the fracking fluid is unknown. Although, there are government regulations that have been put into place, it is quite certain that many companies violate these standards.

Furthermore, Cornell University researchers have stated that the methane leaking from fracking has led to basically no environmental benefits (compared to drilling for coal, for example). With fracking becoming more prevalent companies can also afford to lower gas prices. This in a sense, discourages the user of cleaner forms of energy, such as solar and wind. By observing significant melting from glaciers, it is evident that climate change is occurring right before our eyes. Fracking would just add to this climate change occurring within the Earth – a significant problem in the years and decades to come.

The environmental concerns of fracking have been well documented in recent years. Although it may seem that fracking is detrimental to our environment, more research is being conducted in this area. Last semester, I became more involved in a research lab that investigated the harm of fracking practices. There is a current struggle between scientists, the government, and oil companies when it comes to fracking. Although scientists want to unearth definitive consequences that come with fracking, oil companies and the government are preventing this from happening. The government does not provide enough funding for these projects and oil companies, for obvious reasons, do not want their source of revenue to be taken away from them. Conducting research in the field of environmental chemistry was interesting because it showed me just how much politics can play in the role of science. Besides doing extensive scientific research, there are other hoops to go through in order to change the system that is currently in place.

So are there any positives to fracking, if any?

Although there are negative environmental repercussions to fracking, there are some positives. Due to the increased reliance of fracking, the amount of coal being burned has decreased. The percent of U.S. electricity generation from coal in 2008 was 50 %. Four years later, this figured decreased by 13 %. Coal burning has led to early deaths in many people so reducing its usage would have a positive effect. Also, there have been significant reductions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide since coal has been used to a lesser extent.

Furthermore, the amount of water that is used in fracking is not as bad compared to coal, nuclear, and traditional oil extraction, which can used up to 10 times as much water as fracking per energy unit. Fracking isn’t permanent either. Drilling doesn’t occur forever and the techniques for fracking have been improving in recent years. The efficiency of this process is getting better, which means less water usage and less time needed to extract the oil from the shale.

Overall, fracking is a very complicated issue that is very prevalent in today’s world. We are able to get cheaper gas and the U.S. has become less reliant on foreign nations with the excess amounts of oil discovered in the Permian region. What are your thoughts about fracking? Should the U.S. value revenue over the environment (Oil is an extremely huge business in the U.S.)?

 

Sources:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-14432401

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-without-freshwater-at-a-texas-oilfield/

Pros and cons of fracking: 5 key issues

 

In today’s society, plastic water bottles are ubiquitous. To name just a few places, they are prevalent at supermarkets, cafes, and amusement parks. For obvious reasons, they are convenient for many people. Instead of logging around their own refillable water bottle the whole day, people can just purchase bottled water and then throw it away once they are done drinking it. Therefore, it is no wonder the water bottle business is going strong. Bottled water businesses such as Poland Springs, Deer Park, Dasani, and Nestle bring in millions of dollars each year. In the time being, it doesn’t seem like these companies will stop bringing in revenue: bottled water continues to be a popular choice for many consumers in the busy world that we live in today.

So what are other positives of having bottled water besides the convenience aspect? First of all, it can be argued that they provide a health choice for consumers. In today’s food supply, sugary drinks are filling the shelves at supermarkets more than ever before. When I go to a supermarket, it is hard to find healthy options that are available in the drink aisle. Soda, energy drinks, and sugary juices are pushed before us. Because bottled water is usually always an option, more people are easily able to choose this over other an unhealthy drink. There have been statistics to back up this claim. In August 2017, the National Park Service banned bottled water from its park. The result was more sales of sweetened drinks and the removal of the healthiest option. The Service eventually had to to reinstate the policy to allow the sale of bottled water. Additionally in 2013, the University of Vermont found that banning the sale of bottled water led to greater sales in higher calorie, sweeter drinks. The sale of juices increased by 11% and the sale of sweetened beverages also increased by 10%. Therefore, it could be argued that America would be an unintentionally encouraging unhealthy habits with the ban of bottled water.

Perhaps an even stronger point in favor of the sale of bottled water is its ability to serve as a practical emergency water supply. If for some reason, tap water becomes unsafe to drink, bottled water becomes a reliable alternative for many people. In the case of Flint, MI, bottled water became a necessity due to the high iron and lead levels present in tap water. Those who bathed or drank this water were effected quite negatively by this “poisonous water.” Therefore, a safer alternative was the use of bottled water. Between early 2016 and mid 2018, bottles of water were given to residents so that they could avoid using tap water for their day-to-day actives. A similar action was taken when it was discovered that tap water in Louisiana had high lead concentrations. Once again, bottled water served as a suitable replacement for the people within the area.

This brings up an interesting perspective about bottled water. Without its sale, many people would struggle to survive during times of crisis. How would people survive without bottled water during a hurricane for example? During Hurricane Katrina, the role of bottle water was surely a positive one. People lost their homes and essentially their water supply, so they had no choice but to turn to bottled water. Even during long power outages, bottled water serves as an effective way to obtain drinkable water. When there was a 3 day power outage in my area, I had no choice but to drink several Poland Springs bottled water.

Now as expected, plastic bottled water also has drawbacks. As you may know, bottled water creates many environmental problems. It is estimated that about 70% of plastic water bottles are not recycled. Considering the fact that more than 300 million people live in the U.S., this statistic means that millions off water bottles are not properly disposed of. So where do these water bottles end up? Unfortunately, they occupy space in landfills and even fill up the Earth’s oceans, contaminating many animals’ living spaces. These bottles contribute the most waste in oceans along with cigarette buds and plastic food wrappers. An alarming estimate predicts that by 2050, the weight of plastic waste will surpass the number of fish in the ocean (and bottled water be a heavy contributor to this). Therefore, banning plastic bottled water would significantly have positive effects on the environment. About 68 billion fewer plastic water bottles would be manufactured if there was a ban in the U.S.

Also, a ban on bottled water would result in better health for many Americans. Although there is strict regulation and testing for tap water, the same cannot be said about bottled water. In a study conducted by the University of New York and Orb Media, it was found that plastic bottled water had twice as much micro-plastics than tap water. Furthermore, the manufacturing of bottled water releases dangerous chemicals, such as PET. People who live close by to the manufacturing plants are at a higher risk for experiencing birth defects and illness.

Overall, plastic water bottles do have their pros and cons. The revenue generated by many companies make it hard for a firm ban to be in place. Many people rely on getting their water in the form of bottled water as well. However, as more plastic water bottles contaminate our oceans, it will be interesting to see how humans make efforts to clean this mess up. Although there are actions in place, more plastic water bottles are being manufactured than ever before and causing harm to the places we inhabit today.

 

Sources:

https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005401