Month: February 2023

Waste production is another of the most powerful threats to sustainability efforts, and incorporates not just pollution from garbage, but pollution from manufacturing byproducts as well. This is most often discussed in the context of plastics and their cheap, often negligent disposal. There are steps that can be taken to mitigate this issue, but doing so requires cooperation and will likely be more expensive than current methods, so it would take a serious combined effort for the world to see this change. Nonetheless, it is possible.

As previously mentioned, plastic is the primary contributor to this issue, seeing as nearly every consumer product that is manufactured and purchased every day is made from plastic. In theory, these plastics can be recycled, but the reality is that only around 9 percent of plastic collected gets recycled, and the rest is put in a landfill or incinerated. This does not account for the large percentage of plastic that isn’t recycled or thrown into a landfill, and is just tossed about. This is in in part due to the fact that very few kinds of plastic containers can actually be recycled using current technology, those being #1 and #2 plastic jugs and bottles. In total, roughly 79 percent of plastic ends up as pollution, and most of what is pollution on land eventually makes its way into the ocean.

This is problematic as animals get entangled in plastic material, or try to eat it. The more extensive issue is that plastic does not decompose as organic substances do, but rather it simply degrades into incredibly small pieces called microplastics. Microplastics are debatably even worse than “visible” pollution, because when ingested, they cause innumerable health effects, namely reproductive, neurological, pulmonary, and immune system issues. Furthermore, they cannot be tracked, and traces of microplastics have been found in many marine species. It is likely we all consume microplastics everyday. So if plastic waste and microplastics are such an issue, why not invest more in recycling?

The main reason why plastic is recycled at such a low rate is because proper processing and recycling is more expensive than alternatives such as landfills and incineration, with no obvious economic benefit (good health isn’t profitable). This means that the market for recycling and recycled goods is not very profitable and therefore extremely weak. Landfills and incineration are, in theory, better than nothing, but landfills require massive areas of land to be cleared to accommodate the trash and are inconstant need of expansion. In addition, landfills generate toxins and greenhouse gases. Incineration is no better because of the toxic gases it produces.

The second half of the recycling problem the world’s distribution of wealth. On average, more developed countries produce far more plastic waste per person than less developed countries. However, these developed countries are better equipped with facilities and technology with which to process this waste and deal with it in a less consequential manner. Meanwhile, less developed nations purchase their plastic products from these developed countries, but have mismanaged waste processing systems that lead to most plastic ending up as free pollution. As a result, these countries become the top contributors of plastic waste in the ocean.

As was the case with monocrop agriculture, discussed in my prior civic issue blog, waste production is a problem that grows exponentially alongside the human population. As the human population grows, demand for goods increases, the vast majority of which are packaged in plastic. Theoretically, plastic could be recycled into more product packaging after it is used and thrown out, but this recycling isn’t happening at the rate it needs to, so instead, more and more plastic is produced everyday which will inevitably end up as a pollutant once it is used. As a reference, roughly 380 million tons of plastic are produced annually, and 2.5 million plastic bottles are thrown away every hour as of now, and these numbers will follow the population growth trend. 79% of these objects will end up in the environment.

While the above information seems depressing and hopeless, there are alternatives and solutions which show promise. Firstly, further development of countries could help to reduce waste. Already, companies can be observed setting plastic waste reduction goals, and government targets and economic incentives are also in place. As countries develop, demand for and production of plastic goods increases, but plastic processing facilities also improve, allowing more of these materials to actually be recycled. This is evidenced by the current compound annual growth rate of the value of the recycling market, which is set to increase by over double by 2028.

We also have many other alternative materials such as aluminum and paper which can be used to substitute many plastic products. For example, plastic beverage bottles, which contribute to 14% of plastic waste worldwide, can alternatively be made out of aluminum, which is equally durable to plastic but completely recyclable. This substitute material can also be used for cups, plates, and other mass produced personal items. Glass and ceramics can replace many of the larger jars and jugs that aluminum is too expensive for. While not biodegradable, glass is at least inert and will not break down into harmful components like microplastics. Paper is also often used as a substitute to plastic bags.

As you may have noticed, these are the exact same materials that everything was packaged in before the invention of plastic. Plastic was implemented for its cheapness, so while these alternatives may be more expensive than plastic packaging, at least we know that their mass production is possible given that it used to be the standard, although it would have to be scaled up to the current population. The way I think about it is that paying extra for a product that is not packaged in plastic is both paying for the product and paying towards solving the plastic pollution problem, so it is not more expensive for no good reason.

Overall, solid waste production is a daunting challenge we face in the modern age that continues to worsen the longer we sweep it under the carpet. However, efforts have been made to work towards more sustainable disposable items, and further steps can be taken. We are moving in the right direction, but still have a long way to go. My judgement is that the biggest challenge to further implementing sustainability strategies is cooperation between nations with conflicting interests. However, that should not stop those of us with more aligned sustainability goals to at least get started, and set an example for other developing countries.

 

Sources:

https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/environment/3712999-why-most-plastic-isnt-getting-recycled/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/02/us-plastic-waste-recycling

https://www.nature.com/articles/502615a

https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution

The Best Eco-Friendly Alternatives for the Plastic in Your Life

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/manufacturing-pollution-37013.html

 

 

 

Monoculture farming is a method of farming in which an entire plot of land is planted with one single crop. The vast majority of modern farming is monoculture, though while the most economically efficient method, it is detrimental to the environment. However, population circumstances today leave us few alternatives to meet the global need, making monoculture farming one of the most tenacious obstacles standing between us and conservation.

Agriculture is extremely important and provides the vast majority of the ingredients in our food and clothing, and is used worldwide with hundreds of plants for this reason. Needless to say, modern society could not function without monoculture farming. Chances are, if you live in Central PA, you have seen fields of corn or soybean stretching for miles at a time. These are all monoculture fields, consisting of only one species of crop to be harvested and replanted in a perpetual cycle.

Economically speaking, this is an incredibly efficient method of farming, and has been a massive industry since the 1950s when America experienced its Green Revolution. By planting only one crop, farmers can manage their crops easily, without the extra considerations needed when other species of plants are present. Harvesting is also much simpler than traditional cropping, and when planted in neat rows, allows machinery to be used. All of this ultimately reduces time and resource costs, therefore generating greater profits. However, this cheap and efficient monoculture system cripples the environment in an abundance of ways.

Monoculture farming (also known as monocropping) disrupts the natural state of an ecosystem, in which many species interact and affect each other in a “checks and balances” sort of system. Pests are controlled by predators and the diversity of species close together inhibits the spread of disease in a natural system, but these factors are eliminated in a monoculture farm, so pests and disease spread like wildfire. Not only does this decrease farming efficiency, but it leads to the use of pesticides and other chemicals that flow into the ground and eventually end up in waterways which poison natural ecosystems. Herbicides used to remove weeds and fungi have the same effect.

Monocropping over time also leads to depletion of nutrients from the soil, increasing the risk of erosion and disrupting the natural chemical balance of the ground. This issue is most often solved with synthetic fertilizer, but even this chemical is harmful as it washes away and disrupts the natural chemical composition of the land and water where it ends up. Tilling soil and irrigation further increases the frequency of soil, containing all of the above chemicals, washing away into the environment.

The best way to exemplify the impact of this issue is by examining the effects of monocropping in Pennsylvania on the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Pesticides, herbicides, and sediment from fields runs into creeks, which eventually end up in the Susquehanna river, which eventually leads to the Chesapeake Bay. These chemicals and sediments contain high levels of Nitrogen and Phosphorous, which are necessary for life to thrive, but in excess can render water toxic. This leads to toxic algae blooms, poisoning fish, and the cultivation of diseases transmissible to any animal (including people) that allows the water inside its body. This is just one example of the chemical effects of monocropping.

Monocropping is also perhaps the largest contributor to deforestation and unsustainable land use worldwide. Monoculture farming is used to produce the cotton for clothing, grain, and other ingredients needed in food, as well as the seed oils in most processed food. Seed oils are derived from rapeseed, oil palms, soybean and many other crops, all of which require massive areas to farm and harvest. Cosmetic and hygiene products also contain such ingredients. The modern demand for these products requires a monumental scale of monocropping, which is done worldwide. This means that precious ecosystems in the Amazon rainforest, Africa, America, and countless other regions of the world are razed and farmed in ever-growing quantity. Below is a visualization of the island of Borneo, near Indonesia, between 1950 and 2020, showing how ~60% of the forest has been cleared for timber, palm oil, and rubber production. For a size reference, Borneo is the third largest island in the world. It is home to many rare species such as orangutan and clouded leopards, most of which are critically endangered due to such farming practices.

Monoculture farming itself is a mammoth problem, but there is an underlying issue caused by the ever-growing human population. With all of the side effects of this method of production, the sensible thing to do would be to stop, but as previously mentioned, the global demand for resources does not allow us to turn back. With the speed and volume at which goods must be produced to sustain the current population, monocropping is the cheapest and most efficient way to meet demand; traditional cropping would not produce nearly enough resources, and would exponentially increase land use and associated deforestation. Humans also consume massive amounts of meet, particularly beef in the United States and Europe. Food grown to feed livestock takes up roughly 26% of the planet’s habitable land, and the livestock itself takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural farmland, yet supplies only 20% of the world’s calories. There are more sustainable ways to farm, such as 3-crop rotations, cover cropping, and natural pest management involving ecologically engineered fields, but 78% of farming occurs in poor or developing countries, where the cheapest option is the only option. With all of this in mind, it seems as if we have dug ourselves a hole.

This is a difficult issue, because as humans, we simply must feed our population, though we must also be aware of our presence on the planet and reduce the effects of our farming practices on the environment. Despite our best efforts, however, the global population continues to increase at an exponential rate, which means increased demand and increased farming to match.

So how do we win a losing battle?

 

Sources:

https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets

https://www.cbf.org/issues/agriculture/nitrogen-phosphorus.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/monoculture

How Industrial Agriculture Affects Our Soil