Author: hyp5070

Is water an equal concern for people in different parts of the U.S.? The world? Should it be?

“Water scarcity is a global concern, and that means there’s even a problem in our own backyard. While it may be difficult to put yourself in the shoes of an African child struggling to find fresh water, it’s important to understand that water scarcity affects everyone, even here in the United States” (Water Scarcity in the US).

Typically, when people think of inadequate water conditions and inadequate water access, they think of third world countries; huts, villages, etc. It is a common misconception that these places are the only places facing a water crisis, however, water is a concern for many people in many places that can be considered wealthy and developed – even places in first world countries. For example, Flint, Michigan, Dallas, Texas, Modesto California, etc. all suffer from contaminated water.

The majority of people who are not directly affected by inadequate water conditions tend to not be as concerned as someone who may be struggling to find clean drinking water. Someone living in Flint, Michigan may spend their entire day wondering how they will gain access to clean water to drink while the thought of that may not even cross the mind of someone living in Denver, Colorado. People often fail to put themselves in someone else’s shoes; if you did not have access to clean water, would you not want someone else who did have access to still be concerned, despite the fact that they are not facing that issue?

Water should not only be an equal concern for people across the world due to the fact that people are suffering because of a lack of (clean) water, but they should also be concerned because they may think the water that they have access to is safe, when it is actually harmful and unsafe to ingest. “In any given year from 1982 to 2015, somewhere between 9 million and 45 million Americans got their drinking water from a source that was in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act”(Millions of Americans Drink Potentially Unsafe Tap Water).

In addition to the fact that people may be unknowingly ingesting unsafe water, it is evident that America’s access to clean water, and even water in general, is decreasing. Rivers and lakes are drying up, bodies of water are becoming polluted, the population is rising which is causing a higher demand for water, industrial usage of water is increasing, etc.

It is time for the entire world to realize that we have a water crisis on our hands. If we fail to make a change, third world countries will never get the chance to thrive, first world countries will regress, and the planet will change significantly. For this reason, water should be an equal concern for every single person in the world.

https://thewaterproject.org/water-scarcity/water_scarcity_in_us

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/millions-americans-drink-potentially-unsafe-tap-water-how-does-your-county-stack

https://www.fewresources.org/water-scarcity-issues-were-running-out-of-water.html

Why do people resist alternative sources of energy?

“The most important political division in the world of climate change is between those who accept the urgency of the problem and those who don’t” (Renewable Energy Debate). This quote explains a large portion of the answer to this question; a huge reason why people resist alternative sources of energy is solely because they do not believe in the negative effects that the sources of energy are producing. They either genuinely do not believe that climate change, pollution, etc. is occurring because of the energy that we are using, or they are in denial. 

They may also be resisting alternative sources of energy due to the price; initially it is expensive to make the switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy. This price gap between the differing energies is off-putting to people, especially people who are barely able to pay their bills in the first place. The uncertainty and change from fossil fuels to renewable energy scares them, therefore they stick with the energy source that they know and have been using for so long. However, many people do not realize that after the initial large cost of building means for renewable energy, it is inexpensive to operate.

It is important to note this quote; “Public opinion about energy issues is widely supportive of expanding both solar and wind power but more closely divided when it comes to expanding fossil fuel energies such as coal mining, offshore oil and gas drilling, and hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas. While there are substantial party and ideological divides over increasing fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources, strong majorities of all party and ideology groups support more solar and wind production” (Public Opinions on Renewables). This quote explains that many people do indeed support alternative sources of energy, however, these large numbers of support do not transfer over into the number of people actually using alternative energy sources.

In addition to the money aspect of energy, there is a sense of security in things that are constant. Fossil fuels have been the main source of energy for America for years. It is what people are used to at this point, and as mentioned above, uncertainty often scares people into avoiding change. This security carries over into employment. Fossil fuels provide employment to millions of people throughout America – people working in this industry may refrain from supporting alternative sources of energy in fear of losing their job because they feel secure and safe with the stability of their current job.

It is clear that there is a need for change in regards to not only America’s, but the entire world’s environmental habits. If people continue to avoid alternative sources of energy due to fear, misinformation, cost, etc., fossil fuels will continue to pollute the Earth at an alarming rate. It is important that people become informed about alternative sources of energy so they can make their decision on which type of energy they want to use after knowing the pros and cons of all types of energy.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/4/14942764/100-renewable-energy-debate

2. Public opinion on renewables and other energy sources

https://www.ducksters.com/science/environment/renewable_energy.php

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/

Welcome to Sites At Penn State. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!