Mary McDavid 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls are a collection of waxy or oily organic chemicals that cannot be organically found in nature. They were first made in the late 1920s and have been used in a variety of household and industrial equipment (Learn about polychlorinated biphenyls (pcbs) 2020). They were highly popular due to their strong heat tolerance, lack of flammability, and chemical stability (Learn about polychlorinated biphenyls (pcbs) 2020). However, due to their negative health effects on both the environment and humans, as of 1979, the production of PCBs has been terminated (Learn about polychlorinated biphenyls (pcbs) 2020).  

Although PCBs are no longer being produced on a wide scale, their impacts on the environment are still extremely prevalent. PCBs are still constantly being leaked into the environment via companies unlawfully disposing of PCB waste in random sites, leakages of properly maintained PCB disposal sites, the incineration of materials that contain PCB within them, and the disposal of everyday, consumer items containing PCB into a standard landfill (Learn about polychlorinated biphenyls (pcbs) 2020). In addition to poor care regarding the disposal of PCBs, PCBs do not break down easily in the natural environment (Learn about polychlorinated biphenyls (pcbs) 2020). Thus, once they are exposed in the environment, their negative effects resonate for extremely long periods of time. Their persistence in the natural environment is especially concerning when considering their toxicity, but to magnify this issue all the more, PCBs can also bioaccumulate (the increased concentration of a substance within the fat content of an organism) (Learn about polychlorinated biphenyls (pcbs) 2020). This bioaccumulation causes PCBs to also be persistent in the bodies of organisms and cause the toxicity levels within organisms to increase as one goes up the food chain.  

PCBs have been proven to be carcinogenic to both animals and humans. However, they have also been proven to show many additional adverse health effects such as an attack on the body’s immune system, nervous system, and endocrine system (Learn about polychlorinated biphenyls (pcbs) 2020). PCBs have even been seen to effect fertility and reproduction (Learn about polychlorinated biphenyls (pcbs) 2020). This clearly is alarming in it of itself; however, PCBs’ ability to bioaccumulate within organisms makes it especially concerning for humans consuming those organisms. As humans consume food higher on the food chain, their risks of the exposure to PCB toxicity increases drastically (Learn about polychlorinated biphenyls (pcbs) 2020).  

Although the health implications to humans are extremely concerning, too often do I, on a personal note, find myself only worrying about the impacts that will affect me. However, as already mentioned, PCBs have a huge impact on animals and the environment as well. Thus, it is important to educate yourself about toxins both for your own health but also to understand the greater implications. 

(Beaufort)

In a recent New York Times article, Karen Weintraub emphasizes the effects of PCBs on killer whales. In this article, Weintraub emphasizes the fact that although PCBs have been banned, the problems they create are far from being solved. She outlines that the effects of bioaccumulation of PCBs within orca blubber are passed from mother orcas to baby orcas which wipe the whales out before they have the strength to fight off the toxic effects of PCBs. The article estimates that PCBs have the potential to destroy nearly half the world’s population of killer whales (Weintraub, 2018). Because killer whales are at the top of the food chain, the bioaccumulation of the PCBs peaks within their body as they continue to consume other animals that have the PCBs bioaccumulated within themselves (also known as biomagnification). The article estimates that killer whales that live in more isolated areas such as Alaska or Antartica won’t necessarily be as affected because they are more secluded from the PCBs (Weintraub, 2018). However, these small subset populations will not account for the mass affect PCBS are having on other populations throughout the world. Although many of the effects of PCBs are hard to combat, the article expresses hope that the negative implications can still be mitigated for the orcas. Having said this, much of this hope is dependent on the implication of policy, which is dependent on policy maker’s decision to put actual policies into action.  

Moving forward, the hope is with proper cleaning and a higher level of concern regarding the disposal of toxic substances, we can mitigate the effects they are having both on us as humans but the greater environment as well.  

References:  

Beaufort, J. (n.d.). Killer Whales Swimming in the Ocean [Digital image]. Retrieved March 26, 2021, from https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/en/view-image.php?image=214173&picture=killer-whales 

Learn about polychlorinated biphenyls (pcbs). (2020, February 06). Retrieved March 26, 2021, from https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/learn-about-polychlorinated-biphenyls-pcbs 

Weintraub, K. (2018, September 27). Killer whales face DIRE PCBs Threat. Retrieved March 26, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/science/killer-whales-pcbs.html 

Mary McDavid

Plastic is seemingly everywhere. It’s in our packaging; it’s wrapped around our food; it’s used for containers; it’s in toys, utensils, technology; the list is endless. However, for a substance that we use so much of in our daily lives, how much do we really know about plastic, and how much do we know about its impacts both on us as humans, but also, its greater impact on the environment?  

What is plastic? Plastic is a man-made, synthetic or partially synthetic material that is often times made from fossil fuels such as petroleum or coal (National overview: Facts and figures on materials, wastes and recycling 2021). Plastic’s highly durable and multi-faceted properties allow it to be extremely convenient to utilize in a plethora of different contexts; thus, our lives have become surrounded by plastics. According to the EPA, it is estimated that Americans use just over 35.5 million tons of plastic yearly.  

However, what happens when we are done using the plastic? Plastic makes up approximately 12.2% of our total municipal solid waste (also more simply known as trash) (What are plastics). Once Americans are done using plastic, they have the options of repurposing it, recycling it, or throwing it away. If thrown away, the plastic will most likely end up in a U.S. landfill where it can take hundreds of years to decompose (National overview: Facts and figures on materials, wastes and recycling 2021). The EPA estimates that approximately 27 million tons of plastic ended up in landfills in 2018. An additional 5.6 million tons of plastic was combusted which allowed for a small production of energy recovery. The final 3 million tons of plastic waste was estimated to be recycled. This makes up a very sad recycling rate of only 8.7% for the plastic waste being generated.  

The U.S. is a significant leader in plastic production but even more so plastic waste. The other major competitor with plastic waste production is China, which according to Our World in Data, is estimated to produce about 59 tons of plastic per year (Ritchie & Roser, 2018). China is also a leader in plastic production as well. In comparison, European countries range from a couple hundred thousand tons a year, for example Sweden is estimated to waste approximately 165,000 tons of plastic per year, to tens of millions of tons, such as Germany who is estimated to produce approximately 14.5 million tons of plastic waste per year (Ritchie & Roser, 2018). This range, however, is still significantly lower than the U.S. and China.  

Although recycling plastic is a struggle for the U.S, an increase in recycling rate would be highly beneficial in the minimization of the greenhouse gases that are emitted from plastic when it is thrown away. When plastic sits in landfills and is hit by sunlight, it emits a variety of different greenhouse gases such as methane and ethylene (Plastic waste releases greenhouse gases 2020). Additionally, the creation of new plastic continues to waste precious fossil fuels and depletes other finite resources as well. Thus, recycling plastic would not only help cut down on the fossil fuels being used but would also help reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Both aspects are highly influential on the overall impact that plastics have on the environment and human health in general.  

Unfortunately, however, the recycling rate of plastic waste in the U.S. is rather low. The first issue with recycling plastic waste is attempting to have citizens actually recycle their plastic waste. Recycling often times requires citizens to constantly be sorting their waste which seems inconvenient to many. Although some areas remove this sorting requirement in attempts to promote recycling in communities, recycling is still a struggle for individuals to actually partake in. Additionally, although technology to properly recycle and then eventually repurpose the plastic waste exists, the infrastructure to support this technology is lacking (Plastic waste releases greenhouse gases 2020). In order to provide solutions for some of these problems, education, infrastructure, and community engagement must be enacted so that plastic waste can be recycled more fully.  

References:  

National overview: Facts and figures on materials, wastes and recycling. (2021, January 28). Retrieved March 19, 2021, from https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20plastic%20products%20generation,to%2012.2%20percent%20in%202018. 

Plastic waste releases greenhouse gases. (2020, March 02). Retrieved March 19, 2021, from https://www.plasticsoupfoundation.org/en/2018/08/plastic-waste-releases-greenhouse-gases/?gclid=CjwKCAjw9MuCBhBUEiwAbDZ-7i0Hf3nP8Uy_YSwpz_KE6UuzddAPjA0-AWOoJRdHuiq1sjmARBaBDhoCxlcQAvD_BwE 

Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2018, September 01). Plastic pollution. Retrieved March 19, 2021, from https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution 

What are plastics. (n.d.). Retrieved March 19, 2021, from https://www.plasticseurope.org/en/about-plastics/what-are-plastics 

Mary McDavid

Superfund is an organization that provides funds to the EPA to help restore and remove harmful substances from areas that have been polluted (What is superfund? 2018). Superfund also seeks out environmental justice by exposing the wrongdoers of these contaminated sites and demanding that they take financial responsibility. Superfund looks to preserve human and environmental health; demand responsibility for environmental injustice; evoke community engagement in their projects; and lastly, restore polluted areas in to usable places once more (What is superfund? 2018). One example of Superfund’s efforts to restore once-damaged areas can be seen in Ambler, Pennsylvania.  

In June 1986, a twenty-five acre swath of land located in Ambler, Pennsylvania was added to the Superfund Program’s National Priority List due to dangerously high levels asbestos found on the site (AMBLER asbestos Piles site 2017). For approximately sixty years, various companies disposed of their waste (much of which contained asbestos) which then resulted in the surrounding air, water, and soil being contaminated with highly toxic material. Luckily, with the help of the Superfund program, the site was removed from the Superfund’s National Priority List by 1996 as it was able to be restored to a safe state (AMBLER asbestos Piles site 2017).  

Asbestos is a natural mineral that is made up of a multitude of fibers and has been used in building insulation as an insulator or fire retardant. However, being exposed to asbestos increases chances of lung disease (more specifically, lung cancer) and has also been linked to chances of mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer found in the walls of the lungs (Learn about asbestos 2021). Additionally, asbestos exposure has also been linked to those with asbestosis, a lung disease that originates specifically from asbestos inhalation (Learn about asbestos 2021). Thus, the clean-up of this Ambler site, which is surrounded by residential area and communities, was highly necessary.  

In attempts to make this site safer, Superfund first began its removal attempts in 1984 (AMBLER asbestos Piles site 2017). Their cleanup attempts extended all the way through 1996, with its main attacks taking place in 1988. In order to clean up the area and optimize the health of the surrounding community, Superfund decided to block off the area, cap off the exposed asbestos waste, utilize vegetative soil cover in order to prevent asbestos from infiltrating the air, and insert a drainage system to remove any surface water that accumulated in the area (AMBLER asbestos Piles site 2017). Although, as previously mentioned, the site was fit enough to be removed from the Superfund’s National Party List by 1996, the work did not stop there. Various cleanups and repairs have been taking place up until modern day with the latest work being done from 2017-2019 where repairs were being done to ensure that the previous safety precautions remained in stable condition. Thus, it is clear how damaging and impactful these waste sites can become (AMBLER asbestos Piles site 2017).  

This area stands in particular importance to me as I live extremely close to it. This summer, I would go on a bike rides within a mile of the area and had absolutely no idea that it existed or the damage that was once done in the area. This notion especially resonates with me as it proves the power and effectiveness of what Superfund has been able to do, but it also sheds light on the lack of knowledge that is shared with communities on the harmful substances that could potentially still be impacting the areas we live in.  

Citations: 

AMBLER asbestos Piles site. (2017, October 20). Retrieved February 19, 2021, from https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Cleanup&id=0300445#bkground 

Learn about asbestos. (2021, February 09). Retrieved February 19, 2021, from https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/learn-about-asbestos#asbestos 

What is superfund? (2018, November 30). Retrieved February 19, 2021, from https://www.epa.gov/superfund/what-superfund 

Mary McDavid

The U.S. loses trillions of gallons of water every year due to leaky old pipes rooted in the base of outdated infrastructure throughout American cities. The outdated infrastructure present in many American cities allows for issues such as excess water waste to go unnoticed or overlooked (Janewells, 2015). The water waste from leaks is immense. In household leaks alone, approximately 10,000 gallons of water every year can be accounted for with 10% of homes estimating to have leaks that waste up 90 gallons of water or more per day (Janewells, 2015). On a city-based level, it is estimated that there are approximately 237,600 water line breaks each year (Berst, 2014). Not only do these leakages result in extreme amounts of wasted water but is also predicted to waste 2.8 billion dollars annually (Berst, 2014). This leaves us with the question of what should we do about a problem such as this?  

A recent approach has been through the utilization of smart technology such as AMI meters that collect data constantly on the amount of water being used, where potential leaks could be present, and the overall costs this water is causing. These AMI meters allow for a type of two-way communication that connects the utility system itself to the meters (Berst, 2014). This advanced communication enables a quick and efficient reading that allows for responses to be made at a rapid rate to fix the water leakages at hand and change water usage patterns. This rapid form of detection can have a huge impact on the amount of water conserved as it allows for issues to be shut down and detected before excess amounts of water can be wasted. These meters can both prevent leaks from happening in general but can also prevent small leaks from becoming even bigger issues. These meters also provide American cities with the chance to reassess the infrastructure in place and update it where necessary. Thus, through these meters, we can enable better monitoring, management, and an overall change to the ways in which water is effectively utilized in city settings.   

(Molles and Borrell, 2016)

As seen in the graph above, which specifically depicts conservation efforts in New York city, it can be seen that meter installation acted as the greatest way to conserve water from the various water conservation strategies presented. It is through the ability to detect the loss of water itself that habits were changed and actions were enacted. This specific graph shows that approximately 790 million liters of water per day was potentially saved with the usage of smart meters in New York city between 1981-1998 (Molles and Borrell, 2016). Additionally, the EPA predicts in modern day that almost a trillion gallons of water could be conserved nationwide if leaks were mitigated or eliminated (Water Sense, 2017). Thus, the usage of meters and smart technology is extremely crucial to continue implementing throughout the U.S.  

Citations:

Berst, J. (2014, July 23). Patching up the Pipes: How Smart Technologies Help Cities Prevent Leaks and Save Money. Retrieved February 12, 2021, from https://www.waterworld.com/environmental/article/16192873/patching-up-the-pipes-how-smart-technologies-help-cities-prevent-leaks-and-save-money

Janewells. (2015, August 20). Even in the drought, America is leaking water. Retrieved February 12, 2021, from https://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/20/even-in-the-drought-america-is-leaking-water.html

Molles, M. C., & Borrell, B. (2016). Environment: Science, issues, solutions. In Environment: Science, issues, solutions. New York: W. H. Freeman Macmillan Learning.

Water Sense. (n.d.). Retrieved February 12, 2021, from https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/www3/watersense/pubs/fixleak.html

Mary McDavid

Bangladesh has taken an education and resource–based approach to help control its rapidly growing population. This approach differs from many of the stricter, child-limiting policies, such as China’s one-child approach, which seem to be more well-known. Starting in the early 1970s, Bangladesh has been approaching their rapid population growth by emphasizing notions such as family planning and providing resources such as birth control more universally (Emmalyn Liwag Kotte et al.). Through this approach both governing officials and the media emphasized the advantages of having fewer kids by revealing the opportunities for greater economic stability, fewer responsibilities, and better parenting. The widespread emphasis of this knowledge, spread through door-to-door communication and mass media, created an impactful effect on the size of Bangladeshi families (www.dw.com). From around 1970 to modern day, the total fertility rate, the average amount of births per woman assuming that the current trends of average birth rate are consistent throughout that women’s time of fertility, dropped from an initially high 6.95 children to approximately 2.1 children now (Emmalyn Liwag Kotte et al.). This is especially impressive as a total fertility rate of 2.1 is considered to be the replacement level fertility rate which is the fertility rate needed to sustain a population and simply replace each generation. The impressively drastic results of fertility rate change in Bangladesh can be seen in the graph below: 

Although Bangladesh has faced success in reducing its total fertility rate, there have been many struggles along the way. Bangladesh is populated with a more conservative and primarily Muslim population (www.dw.com). Because of cultural standards and the protection of women, delivering information to Bangladeshi women has not always been the easiest process. Initially, Bangladeshi women were hard to connect with and oftentimes religious leaders would intervene family planning information being delivered to couples (www.dw.com). However, the government approached these issues by allowing religious leaders to be a part of the information sharing process. By incorporating religious leaders into the spread of family planning information, these barriers were able to be overcome. Now, with the emphasis on increased opportunity for education for both men and women, increased access to birth control, and an overall incentivization to have fewer kids, Bangladesh has been able to grab a hold of its population growth in a much more sustainable way than it was previously.  

Citations:  

New 27/01/2021 – by Emmalyn Liwag Kotte, Kotte, E., New 19/01/2021 – by Claudia Isabel Rittel, Rittel, C., Mweninguwe, 1., Mweninguwe, R., . . . Rizvi, N. (n.d.). How Bangladesh reduced the average number of children per woman to a mere 2.1. Retrieved February 05, 2021, from https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/how-bangladesh-reduced-average-number-children-woman-mere-21 

(www.dw.com), D. (n.d.). German Minister hails Bangladesh over birth Control: Dw: 13.11.2019. Retrieved February 05, 2021, from https://www.dw.com/en/german-minister-hails-bangladesh-over-birth-control/a-51229872#:~:text=To%20reduce%20population%20growth%2C%20Bangladesh,contraceptives%20to%20women%20for%20decades.&text=Statistics%20published%20by%20the%20Bangladesh,increased%20to%2063.1%25%20by%202018. 

Mary McDavid

When examining the concept of ecological footprint, I was immediately drawn to the Footprint Network’s Open Data Platform. Through this graphically displayed data one can easily visualize the difference between countries that are biocapacity creditors versus countries that are biocapacity debtors. When viewing this image, it’s hard not to wonder why some countries are more easily able to account for their ecological footprint whereas others struggle so greatly.  

To further investigate this concept, I looked closely at the data behind Brazil, a biocapacity creditor, and Saudi Arabia, a biocapacity debtor.  

As seen in the image above, as of 2017, Brazil had a biocapacity of 8.6 gha per person and an ecological footprint of 2.8 gha per person, allowing their specific ecological reserve to be positive 5.8 gha per person (Global Footprint Network Open Data Platform).  

Saudi Arabia, however, is in a biocapacity deficit due to its relatively high ecological footprint per person, 5.8 gha, and its relatively low biocapacity per person, 0.4 gha (Global Footprint Network Open Data Platform). 

A potential explanation for the discrepancies between these two countries is the terrain that each country houses.  

Brazil is home to the Amazon rainforest, the world’s largest rainforest. The Amazon provides Brazil with a large amount of natural resources causing the biocapacity of Brazil to be relatively high. However, image one also portrays a steady decline of Brazil’s biocapacity over the past fifty to sixty years. A potential explanation for this decrease can be due to the extreme amounts of deforestation taking place in the Amazon, with an estimation of approximately 17% of the rainforest being destroyed over the past fifty years (Deforestation and Forest Degradation).  

The Saudi Arabian terrain is mostly desert causing its biocapacity to be significantly less. However, Saudi Arabia is rich in petroleum and also is a notoriously wealthy country, thus, allowing for the ecological footprint to be rather high per person. This low biocapacity and high ecological footprint causes Saudi Arabia to have a biocapacity deficit. Another significant trend that can be seen with Saudi Arabia via the second image is the increase in their ecological footprint over the last fifty to sixty years. This could be due to Saudi Arabia’s increase in petroleum exportation over the past fifty years and additionally their increase in wealth as a nation (U.S. Imports from Saudi Arabia).  

References:  

Brazil (2017) Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity From 1961 to 2017 [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved January 28, 2021, from https://data.footprintnetwork.org/?_ga=2.10145206.2049730581.1611888619-932879051.1611888619#/ 

Deforestation and Forest Degradation. (n.d.). Retrieved January 29, 2021, from https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/deforestation-and-forest-degradation#:~:text=Deforestation%20is%20a%20particular%20concern,forest%20conversion%20for%20cattle%20ranching. 

Global Footprint Network Open Data Platform. (n.d.). Retrieved January 29, 2021, from https://data.footprintnetwork.org/?_ga=2.211429654.2049730581.1611888619-932879051.1611888619#/ 

U.S. Imports from Saudi Arabia. (n.d.). Retrieved January 29, 2021, from https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRIMUSSA2&f=M