In the true realm of science, it is almost impossible to not be in some sort of ethical dilemma; nothing comes without a cost. Whether it be the monetary funds, the time wasted, the animals sacrificed, or the morals ignored, there is always a give and take when it comes to science, especially in a society that craves results and efficiency. One of the biggest problems we face today is the anthropogenic effects on the climate and the other organisms that inhabit our planet. The extinction rate among plants and animals is 1000 times greater than the rate of extinction that occurs on our planet naturally. Every day, dozens of species that once thrived cease to exist while we continue to destroy the Earth through fossil fuel burning, mass pollution, poaching, overfishing, and the introduction of invasive species. Many have called this the Sixth Mass Extinction of our planet. Quite recently, humanity has learned how to wield one of the greatest forces on the planet: genetic engineering. With this new power at hand we have once again stumbled into another ethical dilemma: do we play God and resurrect extinct species that were doomed to death due to our carelessness or use those resources towards saving the species that are still attempting to survive on our planet?

        As a child, my favorite movie was Jurassic Park, now it’s my favorite novel. I want to be a paleontologist to study extinct species and I’d give anything in the world to see a Tyrannosaurus rex in the flesh. There is research in paleogenetics – even with Tyrannosaur bones—but it is highly unlikely that it’ll yield any significant results before I reach the age of my grandfather. However, research in the resurrection of the woolly mammoth is much more promising. In about a decade, we could be the first humans to see a mammoth since our Ice Age ancestors banished them to extinction 5,000 years ago, but is it worth it? Although it would be amazing to see the mythic megafauna that only roam through our dreams roam the planet once more what would we gain through this? The cost alone of creating one mammoth would be astronomically high and they lived in herds of hundreds to thousands like the elephants of Africa today. The mammoths created would have a very unstable gene pool and would need constant care and human intervention just to survive. The environment of Ice Age Siberia is much colder than today and there would be very few places they could live comfortably, especially as the planet continues to warm, they’d be destined to life in captivity. The biosphere is dynamic, constantly changing and attempting to stabilize itself and fill the holes that are the species that go extinct. There is no niche for the mammoth in the modern planet. Why should we invest all of this money and resources when it is estimated that the African elephant could be extinct in the next ten years?

There are other animals that are also prime candidates for de-extinction. The Tasmanian Tiger, the largest carnivorous marsupial, went extinct in 1933 CE. This animal was well known in Tasmania, Australia, and some of the other neighboring islands and was one of the apex predators before humans wiped them out. (Above is one of the only recordings of the marsupials). Next door, in New Zealand, the Moa, a genus of six species of massive flightless birds, went extinct in 1440 CE when in 1280 CE, when the Polynesians settled New Zealand, the populations are estimated to have been around 58,000. Another bird, the elephant bird of Madagascar, was the largest bird ever standing around ten feet tall. This bird went extinct due to poaching around 1200 CE and natives were seen using the eggshells as bowls as late as the 19th century. Others include the passenger pigeon, the Atlantic gray whale, the woolly rhinoceros, saber toothed cat, the giant cheetah, gomphotheres, macrauchenia, giant ground sloths, and hundreds of other proposed species that have been doomed to extinction because of human carelessness.

        As a society we value life, but we also value defying the impossible. We want to see a wooly mammoth because it seems impossible to resurrect the dead. In order to raise the dead, we must sacrifice dozens of species to join the other thousands that we’ve condemned to extinction. We are responsible for the damage we have caused to this planet and instead of investing billions upon billions towards seeing a sickly furry elephant, it could be going towards closing the hole in the ozone layer, or blocking anthropogenic eutrophication in our coastal waters which leads to ocean acidification, encouraging safer fishing techniques, cleaning up oil spills properly, protecting severely endangered species such as the vaquita or the northern right whale, decreasing pollution, combating poaching and illegal logging, researching safer pesticides, conserving natural resources and land reserves, researching coral bleaching, encouraging the use of renewable energy or discouraging the use of fossil fuels. When we have stabilized our biosphere and our atmosphere, the possibility of seeing a herd of mammoths or a field of elephant birds is something that I welcome with open arms but until then, there are more important things that must be kept alive.

In the previous post we discussed the importance of rainforests and coral reefs. Not only are they massive hosts of biodiversity but they also serve as carbon sinks, a source of carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere. One final ecosystem that we will be discussing is polar ecosystems.

Although polar ecosystems do not host a vast array of biodiversity, the oceans are teaming with life on the microscopic level. Since colder water has the capacity to be saturated with with more dissolved oxygen, more life can live in the water compared to warmer aquatic environments. The reason that we usually don’t associate the polar regions with vast abundances of life is that most of that life is microscopic. These life forms then draw filter feeders to the scene, most notably whales. This is why many species of whales, such as humpback and minke whales, migrate to the poles. This is also why whales are one of the species most affected by climate change. Narwhals (coincidentally, my favorite animal) have recently replaced polar bears as the animal most threatened by climate change.

Whaling is one of the worst stains on the history of humanity and the environment. In only three centuries, humans have decimated most of the populations of whales for their blubber. Whale oil is not only an expensive and extremely finite energy source, it is also extremely inefficient requiring the need for thousands of whales to fuel the economy of the 18th century industrialized world. Thankfully almost every country has banned whaling but many species today are on the brink of extinction. Atlantic gray whales are completely extinct while northern right whales, vaquitas, all species of river dolphins, belugas and narwhals are all struggling to maintain their numbers. When belugas wash ashore, most times they are radioactive from all of the degrading plastic that is in their systems and are considered biohazards. Whales have lived on this planet for the last 40 million years but is remains unclear if they will last the century and recover from their decimation.

Although whales are a prime example, all polar organisms are facing the threat of extinction due to climate change. When the sun’s heat is transferred to our planet, the icecaps are able to reflect some of that heat back into space. As the greenhouse effect continues to warm our planet and the icecaps recede, less heat is being reflected so the warming process increases in a positive feedback, loop eerily similar to the coral reef heat sink/source that I discussed in my previous blog.

We can see the icecaps receding across our planet in glaciers in Iceland and Canada to the snow caps in Argentina. Many glaciers are melting at rates unseen in modern history and sea level rise is following just as fast. Several weeks ago, the Bramble Cay melomys was announced as the first mammal to go extinct due to climate change. The Bramble Cay melomys is a rodent that lived off the coast of Australia on a small island, Bramble Cay. As the sea level rose, the small mammal could only watch as its habitat was destroyed by the surrounding waters. Sea level rise is something that will not only threaten mice and small islands but large coastal cities such as Manhattan, Miami, Philadelphia, London, New Orleans, Sydney, San Francisco, Lisbon, Tokyo, and Washington D.C., displacing millions.

Endangered species are struggling across the globe not just in the tropics. In Africa, many species of animals are struggling to survive in “protected areas” from poachers. Poaching is rampant in many nations with people paying thousands for a lion pelt or elephant tusk or pangolin scales for their traditionally believed, but inaccurate, medicinal or aphrodisiac properties, or just for decor.

The highest rates of poaching are in nations with the least regulations for environmental protection and poaching, but that doesn’t mean that the United States is immune from poaching. Recently, there has been a proposal floating around the federal government to legalize the hunting of grizzly bears. Although the grizzly population in the continental United States is increasing, slowly, it is only because that population is only found in Yellowstone National Park and the lands bordering it. The grizzly population that was once over 10,000 bears and stretched from Alaska to Mexico is barely over 600 and can only be found in no more than 5 states, not including the Alaskan populations. In any other administration, the idea of legalizing grizzly hunting wouldn’t even be put onto paper, but currently this could become a very real possibility in our imminent future. The worst part is that the bears would be hunted for trophies, not meat.

One benefit that endangered species in the United States and other developed nations have up their sleeve is that there is usually stringent regulations regarding the protections of these animals. As I have discussed previously, a large portion of this legislature will potentially be rewritten or removed by the Trump Administration, but so far the vast majority is relatively untampered. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) gives governments the power, and responsibility, to protect native endangered species over other interests, such as builders or oil prospectors. In my next post we will be building upon the ESA along with invasive and introduced species, and de-extinction.

As of now, all of my previous blog posts have been centered around climate change. I am now planning on talking more about the environment and the issues that it is facing. Although closely connected, these are two separate issues that are often joined together. Even if we were able to magically stop climate change the environment would still be struggling, albeit to a lesser degree. This post will serve as a transition between the two subjects as we will be covering two extremely important ecosystems and their impact on the planet and how they are being affected by climate change.

Rainforests and coral reefs host the vast majority of biodiversity on our planet. Rainforests can be found on every continent and coral reefs are in every ocean except the arctic. Both of these ecosystems thrive in warm and wet climates. Not only do both of these ecosystems host a vast array of biodiversity, which is important for a plethora of reasons, they are also massive carbon sinks.

A carbon sink is something that can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. When plants photosynthesize, they use carbon dioxide to create sugars which they use for energy, growth and sustaining their structures. The more carbon dioxide and water, the more sugars and excess oxygen. Not only does this process remove CO2 from the atmosphere but it also adds oxygen and purifies the air, this is why many people refer to rainforests as the lungs of the planet. The biggest threat to rainforests is logging and clear cutting. Many farmers have been chipping away at the Amazon Rainforest for the last century, slowly destroying the Earth’s Lungs in order to farm, raise cattle, earn money from wood, and mine the land for oil and other precious materials. For some rainforests, sea level rise and salt water encroachment is a major issue that is threatening their size.

Coral reefs are sometimes considered the rainforests of the ocean and although they do share a significant amount of similarities they also have their differences. Coral reefs are made of of colonies of thousands to millions of coral polyps which contain photosynthetic algae known as xothanthelle. The algae form a symbiotic relationship with the coral. The algae are given safety within the coral polyp and the polyp receives energy and food from the algae. As the coral grows it builds up a limestone skeleton made from calcium carbonate which is formed from the carbon dioxide in the seawater. Unlike most trees, corals are restricted to only the tropics because they require very specific conditions.

Many people argue that they don’t feel the planet getting warmer. One of the biggest reasons of this is because the ocean absorbs a large portion of the excess heat our planet is receiving, which is making it the oceans more inhabitable for corals. As the temperatures increase, the corals are forced to purge themselves of the algae that provides them nutrients. This also causes the corals to lose all color, this is known as coral bleaching. Mass bleaching events have been on the rise as the ocean temperature levels keep increasing. The largest mass bleaching event occurred in 2016 and almost half of all the corals in the Great Barrier Reef off the Australian Coast lost their color. The damage was seen from space!

Coral bleaching however doesn’t mean death. About half of all corals that are bleached will regain their pigment and algae while the other half will die. After bleaching, corals will have to gain all of their food directly from filter feeding until they reabsorb the zooxanthellae. Corals are also more susceptible to the dissolution of their calcium skeletons during this period.

Warmer oceans have the ability to absorb more dissolved CO2. Higher concentrations of CO2 in the oceans increase the acidity which will trigger carbonate skeletons, which are made up of CO2, to dissolve. This is a problem being faced by all organisms that have a calcium carbonate exoskeleton. This includes crustaceans, such as crabs and barnacles, mollusks, like clams, snails and nautiluses, corals, and echinoderms such as sea stars and sea urchins. There are also large swaths of microscopic life that have carbonate skeletons and produce a significant portion of the oxygen we breathe. In some places in the ocean, the water is so acidic that life has become near impossible to sustain itself. As the coral reefs die off, their carbonate skeletons are left behind and the massive coral reefs are transformed from a carbon sink to a carbon source. The increase in carbon dioxide increases the carbonate rocks which creates a positive feedback loop in our ocean that is becoming more and more difficult to break.

Corals are also threatened by invasive species and human impacts such as irresponsible tourism, pet trade and the coral economy, and pollution. Corals are extremely susceptible to pollution and can break easily from being stepped on. Many species in the Caribbean have been wiped out due to invasive species of viruses and pathogens from the Eastern Pacific reefs and human runoff into the oceans.

As he has said countless times before, President Trump does not believe in climate change. Many times has he tweeted that “we need more global warming” during our winter storms (while ignoring the mass flooding and heatwaves in Australia). Since he sees no threat from greenhouse gases, he sees no need not to use fossil fuels as a backbone for our economy.

One of the biggest goals of the GOP, and Trump, is for the United States to be a global powerhouse in terms of energy exports. Trump mentioned this in his State of the Union Address last week, which didn’t mention climate change or any other environmental problems, and he constantly mentioned the “war on coal” during his campaign season. I do agree that energy is important, the United States shouldn’t have to kowtow to the Middle East for every drop of oil but there are alternatives to raping the United States land of all fossil fuels.

Of course Trump has seen some of the advancements being done in the renewable sector, specifically offshore wind and has left them alone, but is setting up offshore drilling all along the east coast in the same areas. So far there hasn’t been any conflicts but there is still time. Trump lifted almost all of the regulations that were implemented for offshore drilling after the Gulf Oil Spill, saving oil companies almost a billion dollars in offshore drilling expenses. The potential for another offshore oil spill hasn’t been this high in decades. Within the first few months of his presidency, Trump allowed for the reconstruction of the Keystone Pipeline, dropping a massive amount of regulations and within several weeks there was an oil spill, destroying the native ecosystems and Native American lands. 

Conservationists have been arguing that all of this infrastructure in the oceans will disrupt wildlife, especially for the North Atlantic right whale. This species of whale is critically endangered, with less than 500 whales alive today, and calls the United States eastern seaboard home. All whales use echolocation to communicate, eat, and mate. The SONAR systems used to detect sources of oil are extremely disruptive to echolocation systems of whales and can destroy the populations of North Atlantic right whales that are finally beginning to increase after centuries of whaling. Of course when this problem was brought to former Secretary of State Zinke, he prioritized fossil fuels over wildlife.

In order to increase the United States energy output, Trump has added tarifs to many international sources of energy including a 30% tariff on solar panels, which has impacted the solar industry severely. Two solar projects were both cancelled or stalled and worth over 2.5 billion dollars!

Everyone knows about Trump’s controversial decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement, but Trump has also rolled back Obama-era restrictions on industrial and transportational greenhouse gas inputs, lowered methane regulations and given most regulatory power back to the states, which allows oil producing states to practically have no restrictions. Trump has also declawed the Clean Power Plan, with his reason being the “war on coal”.

Although Trump promises increases on infrastructure he has also removed an Obama executive order that required construction to accommodate new buildings for rising sea levels. Trump’s infamous wall will also cut through several national land preserves, fracturing the already fractured habitats of dozens of endangered species. 

One of the things that the United States prides itself in is its national parks. As a developed nation, we have the luxury of having the funds to spend on land conservation and the creation and upkeep of national parks. Most countries don’t have the funds available to allocate for protecting bundles of biodiversity within the nation. Our national parks are something that the United States should be protecting. One of the first decisions Trump passed as an executive order as president was to strip Bears Ears National Monument to 16% of its original size and Grand Staircase-Escalante to less than half its original size. These lands will soon be infested with mining companies to strip all the resources from this unprotected land and then hunters will decimate the once protected populations and afterwords construction companies will build buildings, factories or homes. These lands were also important for native American history, archaeological sites and paleontological sites. Secretary Zinke has also placed over two dozen other national parks and protected lands under review for potentially reducing in size. In his tax plan, drilling was also opened up in Yukon National Park in Alaska, one of the last patches of wilderness untouched by man. Trump has also passed legislation to increase logging in protected areas, and has dropped climate change as a national security threat. Although this might seem like a title, climate change research funding will drop exponentially now if it isn’t considered a national security threat.

Endangered species are facing major threats from humans and their one defense is the Endangered Species Act. The ESA has helped stabilize many populations of plants and animals that are facing extinction by restricting industry, construction and human interventions. These limitations are extremely irritating for many conservatives and businesses, in response Trump and Zinke have been trying to weaken the ESA significantly so that if this endangered species interferes with economy or business, they are prioritized over the species. The Obama administration strengthened the ESA and passed laws so that if an American hunter went abroad and hunted and killed an endangered species, they wouldn’t be allowed to enter the country with their trophy. Zinke overturned most of these regulations claiming that hunting increases conservation knowledge and can be used as a tool for illegal poaching prevention.

There is a council known as the International Wildlife Conservation Council that is responsible for the conservation of wildlife across the planet and limiting Americans poaching abroad. This council, filled by Zinke and Trump, is a majority hunters and people who have donated to the Trump Organization or Campaign. Of the 33 lion permits given by this council, more than half of the recipients donated to the Trump organization or to the council directly. The Trump Administration promised to drain the swamp but yet almost everyone that Trump has appointed to the EPA or Department of the Interior or other environmental government branches don’t believe in climate change and are willing to grow our economy by sacrificing our planet and its inhabitants.

In my previous blog, I posted about the forms of renewable energy that are available today. I didn’t talk about forms of energy that are still experimental such as nuclear fusion or several prominent biofuel research fields since they are still not effective enough to make a difference in the environment at the moment.

Not only is renewable energy better for the environment, but it is also better for the economy. During the last 2 years of the Obama Administration, jobs in the renewable energy sector have increased over 35%. Plummeting prices in renewable energy technologies are causing energy prices to drop substantially. As a result, many  companies are jumping on board. Biomass, hydropower, geothermal, and onshore wind are all competitive with or cheaper than coal, oil and gas-fired power stations, even without financial support and despite falling oil prices. Renewable energy is less mechanized than fossil fuels as it requires more installation. Solar cell installation employs the highest number of workers compared to other forms of renewable energy. The entire coal industry employed 160,000 people in 2016. The solar industry employed 260,000 people and hydroelectric industry another 66,000 people. Renewable energy development creates thousands of long-term, high-paying jobs in fields such as turbine component manufacturing, construction and installation, maintenance and operations, legal and marketing services, transportation and logistical services, and more. Not only do these jobs encourage higher education, they are significantly less harmful for your health compared to working in most fossil fuel jobs. Wind and solar energy also give farmers a second income as they have access to large open swaths of land that are perfect for photovoltaic cells and windmills, also decreasing the need for government subsidies. To harness wind, solar, tidal or biomass energy, there’s no need for mining or fracking, the materials are infinite and at our disposal whenever we need them. Although most of these forms of renewable energy have high initial start up costs, many companies receive government subsidies, donations or large loans they can pay off quickly due to the high energy yield. Residents who own solar panels will break even on their investment after 5-10 years, afterward they receive free electricity and sometimes make a profit. Indirectly, businesses and individuals will prosper financially as prices for renewable energy are cheaper than conventional methods. Houses are more marketable when they have solar panels installed. Renewable energy prices are more stable than fossil fuels that are manipulated by Middle Eastern monopolies and are finite, and estimated to run out in 50 years.

Before the Trump Administration, the renewable energy sector was growing rapidly. Since 2010, dozens of coal and petroleum generators in have been retired while dozens of wind farms are being built and proposed in upstate New York. In many states, rebates and tax credits are being granted to residential buildings that install solar panels. Many towns, are encouraging local, private farms, especially sod farmers, to construct solar farms on their property. The town will then buy the renewable energy and it will distributed by the local electric companies to their residents.

We should always attempt to conserve energy, not only is it good for the environment but for our wallets as well. Planting trees, installing ceiling and attic fans, fixing leaky faucets, running dishwashers and washing machines only on full loads, switching to fluorescent bulbs, microwaving meals, and installing solar panels (after getting through the initial cost) all save people money through saving electricity.

One of the biggest projects now is the construction of offshore wind farms on the eastern seaboard. I lived on Long Island my entire life so I know a lot about this project. The Long Island Power Authority recently approved the South Fork Wind Farm, the largest offshore wind farm in the country. The 15, 600-foot tall windmills plan to provide power to over 50,000 homes in Long Island. The 256 acre property on the Long Island Sound has the potential for 200 windmills for future expansion. South Fork Wind Farm is projected to be operational by 2022, and will triple the size of the Rhode Island wind farm which is currently the largest operational offshore wind farm in the nation. The coastal winds, if fully harnessed, could produce 4 times the total energy produced by the country to date. To meet his REV projections of 50% renewable energy by 2030, Governor Cuomo is expecting this wind farm to generate as much energy as the Niagara Falls generating station. Seven other parcels of ocean territory have been granted to construct these wind farms in other states on the eastern seaboard from South Carolina to Massachusetts, including another parcel off of the coast of Jones Beach in Long Island. Another new renewable energy project being tested in New York is the RITE Project. The Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy Program, located in the East Channel of the East River in New York City. It is the first official tidal power project in the United States. Although a prototype, the 6 underwater tidal turbines successfully generated energy during the highest and lowest periods of the tide in the East River. In the 9,000 hours of operation, the project produced 70 megawatt hours of energy (the equivalent of powering 10,000 people) and the company is hoping to expand and use this as a practical way to power sectors of New York City.

As you can see, renewable energy is a wealth of untapped energy that has the potential of decimating the globe’s massive carbon footprint. The biggest problem the renewable energy sector faces is the fossil fuel industry and the Trump Administration. The fossil fuel industry is so powerful that it severely hinders the growth of renewable energy by influencing politicians to encourage fossil fuels and regulate renewables. My next blog post will cover the Trump Administration and how they have directly affected our environment and their views on climate change.

In my last post I discussed the sources of greenhouse gases and how the best way to stop the input of carbon dioxide is to stop the burning of fossil fuels. The best alternative is renewable energy. In many European countries, a primary source of energy is nuclear energy. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear energy is not a form of renewable energy as the reactant used in the power plants, uranium-235, is a very rare isotope, another finite source of energy. Although no greenhouse gases are released, nuclear power plants release toxic waste products that, in the United States, have no permanent storage facility and most are left on site, which is very dangerous for workers. Although there are many active power plants in the United States, alternative energy emphasis should be on renewable energy. Not only is renewable energy better for the environment and safer, it is also better for the economy, and may be collected in our own backyards.

One of the most common and oldest forms of renewable energy is hydroelectric energy. Hydroelectric power is more commonly used than most people think. Hydroelectric power has been used since the Romans Empire. Only two states (Delaware and Mississippi) don’t access hydroelectric energy and 74% of all the energy used in the state of Washington comes from hydroelectricity. Energy is harnessed by spinning turbines through running water either through impoundment, using dams, or the diversion of streams and rivers that alter the natural flow of the water.  There are approximately 80,000 dams in the United States, startlingly, only 3% produce electricity. Many of these dams were built over fifty years ago, designed only for for irrigation purposes. Applying new technologies to retrofit these dams will access a now untapped wealth of renewable energy to be harvested. The major downside of hydroelectricity was that it harmed local environmental ecosystems. Using new technology, such as fish-friendly turbines and fish ladders, hydroelectricity has become a stable and relatively environmentally friendly process.

Wind energy uses turbines, very similar to those in hydroelectric systems, to generate energy through the movement of wind. At 100 feet or higher, windmills use steadier, faster winds to power their turbines. The blades of the turbine are shaped very similar to that of airplanes to maximize lift and minimize drag. Wind turbines can be installed relatively anywhere and has a low carbon footprint that breaks even in around 8 months. The biggest downside of wind energy is that it isn’t completely reliable as the winds are constantly changing. Although birds, and bats, do fly into windmills, newer models turn at very slow speeds and pose a relatively minimal threat to wildlife (some even roost in them). Approximately 20,000 birds a year die from crashing into windmills but that’s a fraction of the number of birds killed by power lines. Windmills can be solitary, used to power one building, or set up on a large plantation style wind farm linked to a power grid. Some wind farms are also linked with photovoltaic cells.

Using photovoltaic (PV) power cells, solar energy harnesses energy released by the sun to power homes and heat water. Like wind energy, the initial cost to install solar cells is high and it relies completely on the weather but once it is installed there is relatively low maintenance involved and the solar cells have a lifespan of over 20 years.

Geothermal energy occupies only 2% of renewable energy used in the United States. Geothermal energy uses the heat generated by the Earth to heat water and power electricity. It is 70% more efficient than most heating systems and although it is more expensive to set up, it’s cheaper in the long run. Geothermal energy is not without its problems. Digging large holes in the ground is harmful for the local environment, and the water used to heat buildings can become polluted. All of these forms of renewable energy have tremendous potential. Although they have their downsides, utilizing renewable forms of energy is a much better option than burning fossil fuels.

Most people have heard of these forms of renewable energy but there are also other experimental forms of renewable energy. Tidal power is similar to hydroelectric power in that it uses water to generate electricity. Unlike hydroelectricity, tidal power relies on the Earth’s oceanic tides. Tidal generators use turbines in either a barrage format, similar to a dam, or tidal turbines, which look similar to underground wind turbines but generate more energy. (There is an additional system known as tidal fences, a cross between a barrage and a turbine, but, unfortunately, there are no operating projects as of 2016). Tidal power requires a minimum of a 10 foot tidal range. As a result this system isn’t used in most parts of the world. The largest barrage is located in South Korea and the oldest in France. There are no tidal barrages located in the United States. Tidal power is not an environmentally friendly power source as it disrupts fish migration and harms animals. Wave energy is another new, more environmentally friendly form of energy that uses the motion of the waves, not the tides, to generate energy. Buoys, water heaters (and sometimes even solar panels), or turbines, fully or partially, submerged in the ocean collect energy. This system isn’t very reliable. Much of the energy generated is used in the process of transportation to the mainland and is a hindrance to marine vessels. There has also been a lot of research into offshore wind turbines. In Europe, there are several offshore wind turbine farms that generate massive amounts of energy and there are projects to build more than 7 farms off the Eastern Seaboard of the United States with one farm recently completed in Rhode Island that has been a big success in terms of energy.

My next post will cover the applications of renewable energy in the United States, how the current administration regards renewable energy, and renewable energy compared to fossil fuels on the economy.

In order to truly combat the climate crisis we are facing, we must first understand the processes behind it. Climate change, specifically global warming, is driven mostly by the greenhouse effect. The planet receives its light and a significant part of its heat from the sun. Although a big portion of that heat and light are reflected back into space, certain molecules hinder this, trapping the heat which is raising the global temperature of our planet. The biggest greenhouse gas isn’t actually carbon dioxide or methane, but water vapor.

Water vapor in our atmosphere is actually responsible for the greatest influence of the greenhouse effect on our planet. Without water vapor, our planet would be so cold that water wouldn’t be found naturally in liquid form. By itself, the greenhouse effect is one of the amazing phenomena that help sustain life on our planet, but of course anything in excess becomes a problem. Since water vapor levels are constant in our atmosphere we can rule them out as a culprit for climate change. From here we turn to carbon dioxide and methane, the other two significant molecules that impact climate change.

Carbon dioxide is the molecule that has been studied the most with regard to climate change. Carbon dioxide levels have been accurately estimated throughput the past .75 billion years of Earth’s history. By 1950, we reached a level of carbon dioxide that hasn’t been recorded in almost a million years. At the moment, we are at over 400 ppm CO2 levels, almost double what it was a century ago. Although CO2 levels have reached above this in the geologic past, the planet experienced severe climate change: there was no ice caps, no coral reefs, extreme storms were very common, pretty much all the problems we are facing now.

So where does the atmospheric CO2 come from? As we respire we produce CO2 naturally, but this is easily removed by plant photosynthesis, although we are losing plants at an alarming rate. Carbonate rocks, most prominently limestone, are composed of carbonate CO-23 which will break down into CO2. Although this isn’t the driving factor of climate change now, it has been in the geologic past and is affecting coral reefs across the globe. As sea levels rise and coastal erosion becomes a more severe problem, carbonate rocks will break down faster, creating a positive feedback loop for CO2 increase. As more coral reefs become destroyed, they will also become a source for carbon dioxide, since they are composed of carbonate.

Although all of these mechanisms of inputting CO2 into the atmosphere are extremely important and need to be studied, they are all secondary problems compared to the input of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are fuel sources, primarily oil (petroleum), natural gas, and coal, that are made from plant matter and microorganisms, such as plankton, that lived millions of years ago that have been deep in the Earth’s crust under extreme pressures. They are composed primarily of hydrocarbon chains that are extremely combustible, directly producing CO2.

The two biggest sources of CO2 are energy and transportation, in that order. As expected the United States is the second highest in yearly emissions at 4997.5 million metric tons in 2015, behind China at 9040.71 million metric tons of CO2. If you were to calculate emissions per capita, the United States would be more than double China! This is due to several factors: China has a larger population, and many of them lead rural and agricultural lifestyles, and the society we live in is very wasteful.

The other big culprit of the greenhouse effect is methane. Methane (CH4) is less studied than carbon dioxide and because of this it is debated even within the climate science community but many scientists believe that although it’s effects last for less time than CO2 (several hundred years compared to several thousand) methane is more potent in regard to greenhouse properties. Due to the lack of research, methane is sometimes omitted in climate change models which makes many models an underestimate of the severity of climate change within the upcoming years.

Methane, and the nitrous oxide (N2O) another greenhouse gas, is mainly produced by the agriculture industry. Almost two thirds of all methane comes from agriculture and although the oil and gas industry is still the biggest driver of greenhouse gas input, the agriculture industry is second. This is a problem because although many governments and organizations are putting restrictions on fossil fuel companies, the agriculture industry has received very little restrictions to limit their methane output.

The greenhouse gases are the main drivers behind climate change and one of the best ways to stop it is to cease our input of greenhouse gases. The best way to do this is to invest in renewable energy. Renewable energy is a process that is completely sustainable that could power our globe forever. My next two blogs will be on types of renewable energies and how they are being used across the planet and in our backyard.

Hello. My name is Eddie Spagnuolo and this is my civic issues blog. I am majoring in geobiology and I believe that one of the biggest problems we face is climate change and our alarming decrease in biodiversity. Most of my blogs will be covering this massive problem, its plethora of facets and possible solutions.

At the moment, approximately one third of Americans still don’t believe in climate change. Climate change will define our generation and could be the final test for humanity. There are hundreds of models for climate change, some predict that climate change will truly impact us by 2100, others say 2010 but the newest, and arguably most accurate, models predict that we will “hit a wall” by 2050. Although that is 31 years away, it isn’t that long. These models incorporate CO2 inputs, pollution, the Earth’s natural cycles and usually several other factors such as deforestation or sea level rise. Many scientists argue that these models are an underestimate because they don’t incorporate methane levels, a known greenhouse gas produced primarily from the animal industry. Either way reckoning day is coming, and soon. 2050 isn’t when our impacts become irreversible, its when humanity’s extinction becomes a very possible reality.

Within the next decade, we must turn our efforts around or they will be irreversible and we will be guaranteed to hit the 2050 crash. Although many activist groups are pushing very hard to combat climate change, we are too far down the road for them to single-handedly end this looming threat. The support that is needed must come from the governments, and this is the biggest problem.

Many European governments are fully invested in the fight against climate change, strengthened by the signing of the Paris Climate Accords. Many European countries and cities have pledged to become powered off of 100% renewable energy within the next 10, 15, or 20 years. Even China has agreed to the Paris Agreement, being the biggest culprit to greenhouse gasses and pollution. In the United States, it’s a different story.

In the United States, we have a president that publicly denies the existence of climate change, he even laughs at it. After pulling out of the Paris Agreement and striping several national parks of a significant part of their land, it is clear that the environment is not one of his priorities. Since many people look to our politicians as a source of authority, they blindly follow what so many politicians are preaching: there is no such thing as climate change. Many politicians are also being influenced by companies that have stake in climate change such as the fossil fuel industries. One of the scariest parts of this is that people are refusing to accept hard facts about climate change that have been proven time and time again by scientists.

It is true that many scientists fail to successfully communicate their research and findings which is something that many politicians exploit. It is becoming increasingly more difficult for many scientists to be trusted by the general public. This can be attributed to a combination of their clashes with religion, politicians and their attitude towards the public, making them look rather snobbish.

Another problem is that the education systems do not require that climate change and its severity is taught in science classes, causing a general ignorance to the problem. Since many developed nations such as the United States, most of Europe, and China are not experiencing the full effects of climate change yet, due to their geographic location it is also thought of as an abstract idea not as a real problem impacting many people in the tropics and tundras. Many of us live in a bubble where we know that climate change is a problem but we don’t know how bad it is. In places in Oceania and the Caribbean, people’s homes are vanishing before their eyes due to sea level rising. In others places, people are losing their land due to the encroachment of deserts or severe storms and wildfires. The worst part of this is that the countries influencing climate change the most are the ones least affected by it.

The last major contributor to this problem is news sources. If you were to open up your news app it would be highly unlikely that one of the first five news articles contains updates on climate change. The news is so focused on other political dramas that are usually insignificant compared to climate change such as what celebrity said what, who is getting divorced, or what did our president tweet? These news stories barely qualify as news yet they take up a significant part of the news that could be going towards the spread of dead zones across our oceans, the increase in coral bleaching, the melting of the ice caps or literally anything else. The input of so much unnecessary information on our news sources causes most people to become desensitized to the problems and become complacent.

All of these factors together: politicians denying climate change, the overall lack of education on climate change, the lack of scientists who can properly communicate their knowledge, scarcity of governmental support, and news networks not properly covering climate change causing mass desensitization to the problem creates a disastrous mixture that only increases the speed of climate change.