Author: Piper Jones

According to the EPA, automobiles cause 75% of carbon monoxide pollution in the US. In addition, motor vehicles cause 1/3 of the air pollution that results in smog in the US and causes 27% of greenhouse gas emissions (Brinson). As I mentioned in the previous blog post, greenhouse gas buildup (including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases) is a major cause of global warming (“Overview”). Essentially, a high concentration of these greenhouse gases can shift the atmospheric dynamic, causing higher on average temperatures, which warms oceans, melts glaciers, and results in rising sea levels (don’t remember this, check out my last blog post or this well-written report by NASA).

So why am I talking about global warming yet again?

Well global warming is only part of it. Last week news dropped that the EPA is preparing to reduce some of the Obama Administrations’ regulations on automobile fuel efficiencies. These rollbacks have the potential to be extremely damaging to the environment.

In August of 2015, the Obama Administration finalized regulations that required cars and light-duty trucks to reach 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 2025—54.5mpg is roughly double the average fuel efficiency of cars in 2012. The administration at the time predicted that this new ruling would have to potential to ”save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the gas pump” and “reduce US oil consumption by 12 billion barrels” (“Obama”). Obama believed that achieving these new fuel standards would encourage “innovation and investment,” which would in turn increase employment, while also curbing pollution.

As the White House mentioned in 2012, US has the technology to meet these standards—given our advanced engines, improved aerodynamics and more efficient car components. In 2018, this environmentally efficient technology has only increased in efficiency. For example, in terms of electric cars, the 2018 Hyundai Ioniq Electric can reach 136 miles per gallon, while the Tesla Model 3 can reach 130 miles per gallon. Already, there are nonelectric cars that reach close to the mark Obama set in mid-2012—Chevrolet Spark reaches 35 miles per gallon, while the Honda Civic comes in at 42 highway miles per gallon (Gorzelany). There is more work to be done in terms of making affordable fuel-efficient cars. Currently, electric cars only make up roughly 1% of global car sales. Better marketing and pricing of these electric automobile options is needed. However, in the meantime, it seems critical that the United States impose guidelines to encourage environmental conscientiousness when it comes to meeting fuel efficiency standards.

Unfortunately, the Trump Administration plans on cutting back on these environmental regulations—giving car manufacturers leeway to continue to generate new models without fuel efficiency in mind. Scott Pruitt, the infamous current head of the EPA, claims that by eliminating the fuel standard initiatives, the government can ensure more affordable truck, van and car prices—however, arguably at the cost of clean air and a healthy environment (Davenport and Tabuchi).

Interestingly, the deregulation of fuel efficiency is likely going to spark other legal battles between the federal government and the state of California (Davenport and Tabuchi). According to a NY Times article—published March 30, 2018—California “has a special wavier under the 1970 Clean Air Act empowering it to enforce stronger air pollution standards than those set by the federal government.”

California, as a coastal region with serious smog problems, will likely take fuel standards into its own hands by imposing tougher regulations than the current administration is imposing across the nation (Halper). California—much like the majority of the world—will be proactive in advancing to cleaner, fuel efficient technologies.

 

 

Will the rest of America fall behind in terms of clean energy technology without the legal sanctions necessary to enforce fuel efficiency on car manufacturers? How much of an impact will these deregulations have on the demand for American-made automobiles throughout the rest of world?

Only time will tell the answers to these questions. There always seem to be tensions when it comes to environmental policy—tensions between public officials’ opinions and the scientific community, tensions between corporate greed and conservationists, and the ultimate tensions between economic “stability” and environmental well-being.

Given that the federal government is not taking responsibility for ensuring a healthier, cleaner environment, who do you think should bare the burden? More state governments—like California—individuals, or automobile manufacturers themselves?

 

Works Cited

Brinson, Linda C. “How Much Air Pollution Comes from Cars?” HowStuffWorks, HowStuffWorks, 29 Aug. 2012, auto.howstuffworks.com/air-pollution-from-cars.htm.

Davenport, Coral, and Hiroko Tabuchi. “E.P.A. Prepares to Roll Back Rules Requiring Cars to Be Cleaner and More Efficient.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 29 Mar. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/climate/epa-cafe-auto-pollution-rollback.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news.

Gorzelany, Jim. “10 Most Fuel-Efficient Non-Hybrid/Electric Cars For 2018.” Motor1.Com, Motor1.Com, Edition: USA / Global, 12 Feb. 2018, www.motor1.com/features/228496/most-fuel-efficient-cars/2851148/).

Halper, Evan. “EPA Poised to Scrap Fuel Economy Targets That Are Key to Curbing Global Warming – Setting up Clash with California.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 29 Mar. 2018, www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mileage-epa-rule-20180329-story.html.

“Overview of Greenhouse Gases.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 14 Apr. 2017, www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases.

“Obama Administration Finalizes Historic 54.5 MPG Fuel Efficiency Standards.” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administration-finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard.

Most college students feel stress at least some point during their time at university. Whether this stress comes from our academics, social lives or families, stress consumes the typical student on a regular basis. For this reason, a deliberation on mental health was extremely applicable to the Penn State community. I, along with dozens of other RCL students, attended a deliberation in late February titled, “A Better PennState of Mind.”

The deliberation started with a quick overview on why the deliberation was applicable. I learned that anxiety, depression, stress, family and school are the top 5 mental health concerns of college-aged adults. While Penn State does have programs already in place to help students deal with these personal issues, the programs could be improved and better advertised. For instance, there were mentions of the Cedar clinic that provides free, unlimited mental health counseling sessions for students. I had no idea. Often, students must wait for weeks to schedule an appointment with the well-known PSU CAPs program. The Cedar clinic wait time is about 1 week.

The deliberation was broken into three main approaches. One group looked at the potential benefits of requiring each student to take a mental health awareness course, similar to the alcohol training done in New Student Orientation. Another group analyzed the accessibility of on-campus resources for mental health. I found it interesting how they mentioned that a successful college mental health program usually has 1 counselor for every 1,000 students. I wonder if Penn State has 50 trained counselors to deal with the almost 50,000 students on campus?!? Lastly, the third group touched on the potential values of courses that teach students how to manage their own health. Ultimately, we concluded that the school already provides a stress management course—however, as one student put, “The stress management course is really hard and causes my friend a lot of stress.”

I think the groups did a solid job of explaining their ideas and solutions. However, many of the approaches seemed to overlap—this led me to conclude that all approaches could be implemented at Penn State. In addition, the approaches could have been better tied to core values.

Despite these minor flaws, I found the conversations and input of students really eye-opening. People talked about their own experiences with University counseling and about their personal strategies for dealing with stress. We looked at if RA’s could become better mental health resources and if there should be offices in each residential hall to provide counselors and mental health management strategies.

I think this deliberation was extremely valuable because it brought together so many students and allowed us to connect to one another about our personal experiences. Unlike other deliberation that might focus on topics that don’t relate to college students as well, this topic was extremely applicable. Input from audience members was constant and fluid. Everyone could contribute in a meaningful way because mental health affects everyone. I think it is important to remember that successful deliberations have a topic and audience that are compatible.

Polar bears—malnourished and limping—stranded on liquefying glaciers. Crops dried and dead. Soil cracking and fields barren. Rising ocean levels and tidal-wave sized flooding.

We have seen the posters, heard the stories, listened to the scientific projections, and frankly many might feel tired of the intense conversations and the harsh political polarization associated with this “controversy.” But, there is too much at stake to not discuss the life-threatening, world-altering, irreversibly damaging process of manmade global warming.

Climate change has been discussed and debated (and denied by some who blatantly reject scientific evidence and facts) almost ad nauseam. In the words of Republican congresswoman Michele Bachmann, it’s “all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax.” According to Republican congressman Steve King, “It’s more of a religion than a science.”

If only that were true…

Penn State researchers in late January 2018 released new information about the effects of the warming climate and rising ocean levels. (Penn State has an incredible meteorology program and is a national leader in climate change research under distinguished professor Michael Mann). Specifically, the research study conducted by PSU doctoral student Andrew Ross involved a computer model compiling 100 years of observations about high and low tides in the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. Through careful variable manipulation, ultimately, Ross and his PSU colleagues found that raising sea levels are shifting the tidal wave ranges—by both increasing, decreasing tidal wave magnitudes—in these local waterways.

You might be thinking, why should I care about shifting tides or rising water levels? Changes like these not only alter aquatic ecosystems and affect regional wildlife, but are also become emblematic of larger manmade destruction.

Last week, the National Academy of Science of the United States of America published a new study that found that the acceleration in the sea level rise is caused mainly by glacier melting in Greenland and Antarctica and that by 2100, sea levels will rise by 52 to 98 centimeters if we do nothing to limit current greenhouse emissions. 65 centimeters is a rise of roughly 2 feet, which will undeniably have huge consequences for ecosystems around the world. According to National Geographic, a sea level increase of this magnitude would cause seawater to move further inland, resulting in destructive erosion, wetland flooding, aquifer and agricultural soil contamination, and lost habitats for fish, birds, and plants.

In addition, the National Climate Assessment, which is part of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, has predicted that global warming will also cause coral reef collapse, a diminishing efficiency of agricultural, water, energy, transportation sectors, reduced air quality, which will lead to increased respiratory and cardiovascular disorders, increase in allergies and asthma, increase in food and waterborne diseases, heightened rates of disease carried by insects (ex. Lyme’s disease, West Nile Virus ) and so much more.

Understanding the widespread impacts of manmade climate change is crucial, particularly when climate change denial seems so prevalent among current US government leaders.

In early summer 2017, President Trump officially withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate agreement. The agreement formulated in 2016 was a joint global effort towards greenhouse gas emissions mitigation.

In August 2017, the Trump Administration disbanded a federal advisory committee on climate change. The committee published the National Climate Assessment every four years, which outlines the effects of climate change and necessary future steps to combat the crisis. The US government no longer supports these assessments.

In late December 2017, Trump dropped climate change from the US national security strategy. In addition, according to the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative—an international coalition of researchers and activists—the words “climate change” have been removed from US government websites and information on climate change programs have been deleted or buried (don’t believe me, see here). Inevitably, the changing access to resources about climate change on federal sites will only continue to breed a misinformed and skeptical public. We need action and widespread support for scientific fact—not ignorance and shortsighted thinking.

These shifts in environmental policy are extremely disheartening, especially when considering the long lasting consequences that climate change denial will have on the future of our world. As a citizen of the United States, you can help combat climate change by being energy efficient, supporting renewable power, limiting the waste you produce, being informed about the environment, and ultimately supporting politicians and organizations (check out the Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club Foundation, Earthjustice, Sioux Tribe, Natural Resources Defense Council) that will help nurture and maintain a healthy environment for future generations.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this “debate.” How do you think climate change research should be presented so that it is more widely accepted by the US public?

 

References

“Human Health.” National Climate Assessment, US Global Change Research Program, nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/human-health.

Jackson, Liam. “Century of Data Shows Sea-Level Rise Shifting Tides in Delaware, Chesapeake Bays.” Penn State News, The Pennsylvania State University, 24 Jan. 2018, news.psu.edu/story/502250/2018/01/24/research/century-data-shows-sea-level-rise-shifting-tides-delaware.

Miller, Brandon. “Satellite Observations Show Sea Levels Rising.” CNN, Cable News Network, 13 Feb. 2018, www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/world/sea-level-rise-accelerating/index.html.

Warne, Kennedy. “Sea Level Rise.” National Geographic Society, National Geographic Partners, 7 Apr. 2017, www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise/.

Water. An essential resource that sparks huge environmental and governmental policy debate.

In May 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers—two federal agencies under the Obama administration—proposed a new regulation, titled “Waters of the United States,” or WOTUS. The regulation defined that rivers, streams, lakes, and marshes all fell under the jurisdiction of the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers. Its ultimate goal was to limit pollution in about 60% of the nation’s bodies of water (Davenport).

The proposal, which almost immediately received pushback from industry leaders and the GOP, represented an amendment to the 1972 Clean Water Act. (The Clean Water Act had given the federal government authority to limit pollution in major US water bodies, but was confusing when it came to the jurisdiction of the waters that feed into these major bodies…read more about it here). The goal of WOTUS was to protect and preserve important water sources because as EPA director Gina McCarthy claimed,

“Protecting our water sources is a critical component of adapting to climate change impacts like drought, sea level rise, stronger storms, and warmer temperatures—which is why EPA and the Army have finalized the Clean Water Rule to protect these important waters, so we can strengthen our economy and provide certainty to American businesses” (Neuhauser).

Property developers, oil and gas producers, fertilizer companies, farmers, golf course owners, and other big industry leaders hated the WOTUS rule. They saw WOTUS as further evidence of government overreach. The largest opponent to the agreement was the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF)—an independent, nongovernmental organization guided by the mission statement of “enhanc[ing] and strengthen[ing] the lives of rural Americans and [building] strong prosperous agricultural communities.” AFBF claimed that the tougher regulations on water would make farmers’ lands less valuable and would lead to new costs and burdens on farmland owners (Davenport). (One farmer in Missouri even created her own Frozen parody to express her concern over the EPA’s rule. It is actually really funny and kinda well done…check it out here).

Because of legal struggles between court systems, the EPA and large industries, the 2015 proposal ultimately never fully took effect—rather, the ruling was stalled from being implemented.

So, why should you care about WOTUS in 2018?

The EPA under new Administrator Scott Pruitt supports stalling the rule altogether, ensuring that it never gets passed. On January 31, 2018, the EPA and US Department of the Army added an “applicability date” to the 2015 Clean Water Rule. According to Scott Pruitt, “the 2015 WOTUS rule developed by the Obama administration will not be applicable for the next two years, while we work through the process of providing long-term regulatory certainty across all 50 states about what waters are subject to federal regulation” (“EPA and Army Finalize”). The new EPA ruling is a continuation of the larger executive order issued by President Trump, titled “Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.”

This new ruling by the current EPA shows an obvious shift in environmental policy. While maybe the wording and implementation of WOTUS wasn’t quite right, the stalling of the agreement foreshadows a dangerous shift of valuing the economic concerns of big industries and corporations, instead of focusing on environmental preservation. According the New York Times, EPA director,

Scott Pruitt “is now crafting a Trump administration version, which is expected to include much looser regulatory requirements on how farmers, ranchers and real estate developers must safeguard the streams and tributaries that flow through their property and into larger bodies of water” (Davenport).

We need more regulation on these bodies of water, not less. With severe droughts throughout much of the American west and southwest, and the expansion of waterway pollution due industrial runoff, now is the time to conserve our precision reservoirs, rivers, marshes, canals and oceans. According the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ahh, the irony), agriculture is the nation’s leading cause of impaired water quality. Fertilizer

run-off allows nitrogen and phosphorus to seep into our waterways causing dangerous algal growths that can threaten aquatic life. Not to mention that chemicals from agriculture fertilizer, in addition to bacteria and parasites from farm waste can be inserted into local drinking water sources. In 2015, it was reported that 44% of assessed stream miles, 64% of lakes, and 30% of bay and estuarine areas were not clean enough for fishing and swimming (Bradford).

I see the concerns that property owners have about governmental overreach. However, the effects of water pollution in one isolated region has horrible chain-reaction effects for surrounding regions. Many waterways throughout the US connect to one another or lead to major oceans. A small ditch in Missouri can connect to a local river which can connect to a lake and eventually lead to the ocean. When small amounts of pollution build up in one area, huge consequences can result. For example, the Mississippi river carries 1.5 million metric tons of nitrogen pollution into the Gulf of Mexico each year. This is enough pollution to create a toxic region in the ocean the size of Massachusetts (“20”).

Overall, the ruling dismantling the 2015 WOTUS is rather disappointing. Although the ruling itself might not have represented the best agreement for both environmentalists and landowners, its sentiment was in the right direction. Limited valuable resources, like our water sources, need protection.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this issue. How do you think the government should regulate water preservation (if at all) while also keeping property owners and farmers happy?

References

“20 Water Pollution Facts – For the United States and Throughout the World.” Water Benefits Health, www.waterbenefitshealth.com/water-pollution-facts.html.

Bradford, Alina. “Pollution Facts & Types of Pollution.” LiveScience, Purch, 10 Mar. 2015, www.livescience.com/22728-pollution-facts.html.

Davenport, Coral. “Trump’s Environmental Rollbacks Were Fast. It Could Get Messy in

Court.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 31 Jan. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/climate/trump-zinke-environmental-rollback.html.

“EPA and Army Finalize ‘Waters of the United States’ Applicability Date.” EPA, Environmental

Protection Agency, 31 Jan. 2018, www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-and-army-finalize-waters-united-states-applicability-date.

Neuhauser, Alan. “EPA Expands Clean Water Regulations.” U.S.News & World Report, 27 May 2015, www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/05/27/epa-expands-clean-water-regulations.

Swanson, Abbie Fentress. “What Is Farm Runoff Doing To The Water? Scientists Wade In.” NPR, NPR, 5 July 2013, www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/07/09/199095108/Whats-In-The-Water-Searching-Midwest-Streams-For-Crop-Runoff.

“Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rulemaking.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 31 Jan. 2018, www.epa.gov/wotus-rule.

 

 

 

 

In 2010, an explosion on a BP oil rig lead to eleven deaths and one of the most devastating environmental disasters that the United States has ever seen. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill dumped millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, affecting wildlife, coral ecosystems, and local economies and forever staining British Petroleum’s reputation as the “environmentally friendly” oil powerhouse.

“Waves of Oil: Black Tide Intrudes Along Alabama Beaches.”

“Spill Still Growing.”

“Oil Leak, Biggest Ever”

The ominous rhetoric documenting this environmental tragedy invaded headlines from all media outlets. Oil soaked birds, fish belly up on the ocean’s surface, blue waters tainted black—these images floated across news covers and television screens for months after the initial explosion.

A Pew Research study conducted one year after the spill found that public support for drilling fell from 63% in February 2010 to 44% by June 2010 (see here). Americans saw this devastation. Public opinion about the value of offshore oil drilling changed.

But perceptions of oil drilling as a potentially environmentally hazardous and economically costly practice were as fleeting as a retreating ocean tide. Less than a year after the crisis, 57% of the public supported more oil and gas drilling in US waters.

As of January 2018, according to Rasmussen reports, 43% of likely US voters think offshore oil drilling should be allowed, while 40% do not. 17% are still undecided about the issue (see here).

Public opinion of oil drilling is particularly important now, as President Donald Trump announced in early January 2018 that almost all United States coastal waters would be opened for offshore oil and gas drilling. President Trump plans to remove Obama’s five-year offshore drilling plan, which blocked large areas in the Artic and Atlantic from being drilled. The tight regulations on offshore oil drilling implemented under the Obama administration are now being loosened—safety requirements and monitoring systems for spill containment are no longer requirements.

America is in a time of great change. Under the Obama administration, decisions were made with environmental protection and conservation in mind—from clean energy investment to the Renewable Fuel standard to the Clean Power Plan.

However, the current administration often pushes aside environmental concerns when making policy decisions. Instead the economy, the potential for job creation, and big oil interests are the focus at the expense of ecosystems and wildlife across the country. These current policies are dangerous to the economy, the environment, and to future generations that will inhabit this planet.

Economically, offshore oil drilling is problematic to the tourism industry in many states. Republican governor from Florida, Rick Scott, has opposed Donald Trump’s plan and has attempted to seek exemption from the policy. Scott stated, “For Florida, we have to remember we are a tourism state. One out of every six jobs in our state is tied to tourism. So, I oppose offshore drilling.” Scott is not the only Republican to oppose Donald Trump’s plan—South Carolina’s republican governor and Georgia’s republican governor both are concerned about drilling’s effects on tourism in their coastal regions. (Talks of Trump’s Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, making exceptions for certain states under Republican leadership shows the inherent hypocrisy and favoritism of current White House administration—but I guess I’ll save that for a different post. Read more here).

Personally, economics aside, I see the opening of US shorelines and the deregulation of oil drilling as a step backwards. It emphasizes a shift in America from investment in clean energy back to focusing on the more environmentally taxing energy sources of an old era.

Environmentally, the process of oil drilling can be risky. While new technology and monitoring devices have eliminated some of the environmental hazards associated with oil drilling, the practice still has the potential to cause ecological damage. Scientists have found that drilling causes seismic disruptions that can affect nearby organisms and habitats. One research study found a correlation between seismic noise and an increase in the number of beached whales. In addition, with a greater number of offshore drilling sites—as would be expected under Trump’s new policy—comes a greater risk for spillage. Oil spills affect all organisms inhabiting the ecosystem—sea turtles, otters, fish and seagulls. Coral reefs become toxic. Mangroves are poisoned. The environmental effects of an oil spill are costly and potentially irreversible.

In my mind, the opening of US coastline is emblematic of American refocusing its efforts on a toxic (…and dying) energy source. Oil becomes a double threat—the act of drilling it is environmentally taxing and when we burn petroleum, we contribute to the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Why can’t we refocus our energies and resources on wind and solar power—alternative energies that are healthier for the environment and have the same potential for job creation?

As a self-proclaimed environmentalist, I am disappointed by the current decisions in favor of increased offshore oil drilling. The policies show neglect for the environment—for the unique wildlife and beautiful ecosystems across the country—and disrespect for future generations that will inhabit this planet.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this issue, and if you are interested in reading more or seeing references for this post, click some of the topics below…

• BP: An Environmentally Friendly Company?
• The Government Explains Oil
• National Geographic Explains Trump Policies
• Tourism vs. Oil: Which Will Republicans Choose?
• Obama to Trump: What Has Changed

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