Month: February 2019

Should people be worried about fracking?

In order to answer this question, it is important that we first define what fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is. The Independent Petroleum Association of America explains that “Fracking is a proven drilling technology used for extracting oil, natural gas, geothermal energy, or water from deep underground” (Hydraulic Fracturing). To summarize how fracking begins, a well is drilled and cemented into layers of rock, then the drill drops down to shale formations where it releases a high pressure mixture (‘fracking fluid’) which creates fractures that cause a release of gas. This gas is caught by the casing of the well and can then be used for cooking, heating, fuel, etc.

Fracking, like many things, has both it’s pros and it’s cons. It is a widely controversial topic in the United States for several reasons. First, we will discuss the pros, or the advantages, of fracking. Due to fracking, natural gas prices are decreasing as there is now an abundance of them. The Brookings Institution expands on this by saying “The U.S. fracking revolution has caused natural gas prices to drop 47 percent compared to what the price would have been prior to the fracking revolution in 2013” (The Economic Benefits of Fracking). With this abundance of natural gas, the United States has become the world’s largest producer of natural gas, meaning that rather than being an importer of natural gas, the U.S. is now an exporter.

A controversial advantage of fracking is that it is a more environmentally friendly way to recover fuel (as opposed to coal). Natural gas that is obtained from fracking has surged while the need for coal has decreased (burning coal produces much more carbon dioxide than burning shale gas releases). However, this is controversial because fracking does also have a negative impact on the environment.

Now that we have discussed some of the advantages of fracking, we can discuss the disadvantages that often turn people off from fracking. The main disadvantage is the effect fracking has on the environment. It can be dangerous to the environment for a plethora of reasons. If an oil or gas well used for fracking is not build sturdily enough, a leak can form and contaminate groundwater. This water can then contaminate other water supplies with chemicals that are harmful to humans and animals. The Science Education Resource Center at Carleton College informs us that “A recent study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) monitoring gas wells in Weld County, Colorado, estimated that 4 percent of the methane produced by these wells is escaping into the atmosphere. NOAA scientists found the Weld County gas wells to be equal to the carbon emissions of 1-3 million cars” (Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking). There are also many other air contaminants that are released during the procedure of fracking that are known to cause cancer, organ damage, birth defects, etc.

Fracking also causes a large increase in oil spills, especially while transporting the oil and gas obtained from fracking. Not only are oil spills incredibly harmful to animals, but they can also cause respiratory and liver damage, a decrease in immunity, an increase in cancer risk, etc.

The last disadvantage of fracking that we will be discussing regards earthquakes. Earth and Space Science News explains that “In hydraulic fracturing, a slurry of water, sand, and chemicals is pumped through the ground at high pressures, cracking open rocks to release oil and natural gas. This produces tiny earthquakes that usually can’t be detected without sensitive instrumentation. Disposing of wastewater by injecting it into the crust can also trigger quakes: As the increased fluid pressure migrates away from the well, it can reach a well-oriented fault that is close to breaking and cause it to slip. Since these deeper faults are often larger, they are capable of producing larger earthquakes” (More Earthquakes May Be the Result of Fracking Than We Thought).

To answer the question: people who want to be worried about hyaluronic fracturing should be, and people who do not want to be worried should not be. There are both clear advantages and disadvantages to fracking, however it is unclear which side outweighs the other.

https://www.ipaa.org/fracking/ 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2015/03/23/the-economic-benefits-of-fracking/

https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/hydrofracking_w.html 

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/more-earthquakes-may-be-the-result-of-fracking-than-we-thought

 

“How effective have forms of consumer-oriented environmental action—Priuses, compact fluorescent light bulbs, reusable grocery bags—been”?

Over the years, it has become apparent that environmental degradation is occurring more and more rapidly. For this reason, not only companies, but also day to day consumers are making a few changes and a few different actions with the hopes of helping to partially repair, or at least decelerate, the degradation of the environment.

In this post, in order to assist in answering the question stated above, consumer-oriented actions (electric cars, reusable plastic, etc.) and their effects on the environment will be discussed, as well as the current condition of the environment.

The Nature Conservancy explains that ” Increasing demands for food, water, energy and infrastructure are pushing nature to its limits. And the impacts of climate change are touching down everywhere we look”. Their article then goes on to explain that “Increased investment in nature-based solutions such as avoiding forest loss, reforestation, investing in soil health and coastal ecosystem restoration gives us the best opportunity to prevent catastrophic warming and increase our resilience to climate impacts” (The Biggest Environmental Challenges of 2017).

While the average person may not have the means to invest in nature-based solutions, they may have the means to make changes that can have a positive effect on the environment. These means not only include what has been stated in the question at the top of this post, but also includes things as simple as recycling, conserving water, etc.

Electric Cars: As more and more electrical cars are being made, more consumers are buying them. This means that exhaust emissions from regular cars are decreasing, which is a good thing for the environment. Environment America states that “By 2025, widespread use of electric vehicles, coupled with a cleaner electricity grid, could reduce global warming pollution by 18.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, compared to conventional vehicles. That is equal to saving more than 2 billion gallons of gasoline per year or the annual emissions from 3.8 million of today’s cars and trucks”. (Driving Cleaner: More Electric Vehicles Mean Less Pollution).

CFL: In regards to CFL light bulbs and consumer use, Dr. Bill Blair “CFL bulbs use about 1/4th of the electricity of a normal bulb, and they last much longer (I have seen claims of 10x longer, but my personal experience has been more like 5, but that’s a detail). That is a factor of 20-40x less electricity used over the life of the bulb. There are not many places where such an outstanding improvement in efficiency can be obtained so easily. Since most of our electricity comes from burning coal, reducing electricity usage reduces the amount of coal that needs to be burned” (CFL Bulbs: Good or Bad for the Environment?). This is a good thing for the environment, as it results in less coal emissions. This survey, despite it being a few years old, shows that most homes use a mixture of lightbulb types. As more and more people switch to CFL bulbs, less coal emissions are being made, which is indeed helping the environment (however, this is just one source of coal emissions, so it is still a huge problem that is impacting the environment).

 

 

Reusable Grocery Bags: While there is not much research on how many people use reusable grocery bags vs. how many use plastic groceries bags, it has been proven that it takes years and years for plastic bags to break down and animals often mistake these bags for food and end up dying from ingesting them or suffocating from them. While every little bit helps, in order to have a serious impact on the environment, more people will have to use reusable grocery bags rather than plastic ones.

In conclusion, forms of consumer-oriented environmental action have assisted in environmental degradation, however, much more needs to be done on a larger scale in order to begin to save the environment from deterioration.

https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/the-biggest-environmental-challenges-of-2017/

https://environmentamericacenter.org/reports/amc/driving-cleaner

http://blair.pha.jhu.edu/global/CFL_oct11.pdf

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31112

“To what extent has the climate ‘debate’ been resolved in the public eye”?

Many people may have opposing answers to this question, but in my opinion, the climate debate has barely been resolved in the public eye and continues to be heavily controversial. I believe that climate change is gaining more awareness and that is definitely a positive for the side that believes it is a serious issue, and I also believe that more people are working towards changing their habits in order to help maintain the health of the environment, but despite these things, I believe that the climate debate is still heavily controversial among many people.

To this day, people still continue to debate whether or not climate change is real, even the President of the United States. When questioned about climate change during a CNN news report, Trump expressed that ““I don’t believe it,” “No, no, I don’t believe it”. He has also sent out tweets in which he explained that “global warming is a hoax”. I believe that this is a huge reason that climate debate is still occurring so heavily among the public – if our own president does not believe in climate change, why should we? Donald Trump’s opinions and beliefs on climate change seem to have a significant impact on the debate of climate change.

Despite Donald Trump’s very vocal opinions on climate change, many people in the world (especially scientists) work to convince people that climate change is indeed real, and is a large issue. They do so by using Earth-orbiting satellites and other pieces of technology that can record data regarding climate change. National Geographic explains that thirty years ago, climate change became news to the public and began to spark a debate that has lasted until the present, and will likely last throughout the future as well, meaning resources will most likely continue to go towards proving which side of the debate is right and which side is wrong.

The people on the opposing side of President Donald Trump regarding climate change (so the people who believe climate change is a real issue) have released scientific reports and warnings about the effects of climate change on health, economy, and the environment. This report, as well as signs such as temperature rise, warming oceans, melting glaciers, etc. have continued to support this side’s beliefs on climate change and have even convinced non-believers to begin to think that climate change could potentially be an issue.

Climate debate seems to have a long way to go regarding a resolution among the public eye, however we are further in the debate than we were thirty years ago, signaling that a potential compromise or agreement may be in the near future. From the way the debate seems to be progressing at this point of time, it can most likely be inferred that the resolution to this debate will be a compromise between the two opposing sides rather than focusing on which side is correct and which side is incorrect.

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/27/18114338/trump-climate-change-assessment-golf-course-ireland

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/07/embark-essay-climate-change-pollution-revkin/

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/