Author Archives: gvw5064

Overpopulation

Throughout the past two and a half months, I’ve written about a handful of issues that pose serious threats to our environment.  These include things like pollution, deforestation, and climate change.  However, all of these can be traced back to one thing: overpopulation.  Overpopulation is such a big problem because of the wastefulness of humans and our tendency to consume more and more.  And as our population continues to grow, I’m afraid that we’ll need to make some serious lifestyle changes if we’re to protect our environment.

The world population currently sits at around 7.5 billion, and it is expected to increase to 9.2 billion in the next twenty years.  Although this increase isn’t as rapid as those we have seen in the past half century, this will still put an enormous strain on resources and will create excessive pollution.

Fig. 1. Our World in Data. World Population Growth.

Many people wonder what causes overpopulation, and the answer is simpler than you might think.  It means that the death rate is lower than the birth rate.  While this is easy enough to understand, there are several things that factor into the lowering of the death rate over time.  The birth rate is actually declining too, just at a much slower pace than the death rate.  Although the lowering of the death rate isn’t due to just one thing, the easiest aspect to pinpoint is the greatly improved medical care developed in the past 50 to 60 years.  Since we’re able to keep people alive longer, life expectancy rises, and less people are dying each day.

Obviously, it’s not a bad thing that we’re able to keep people healthy, and it would be immoral to intentionally raise the death rate.  This means that we instead need to focus on lowering the birth rate.  Although this sounds easy, regulating the population is harder than you might think.  This is primarily due to the fact that the birth rate is highest in developing countries, which are logically the same places where overpopulation is the biggest problem.  This is because poverty rates are high in these countries, so women have more children to be able to help out the family by working.  They also have limited access to contraceptives, so there’s not much help in preventing unplanned pregnancy.

Fig. 2. WordPress. Overpopulation in Bangladesh.

Obviously, the easiest way to limit population in developing countries would be to invest in birth control or other contraceptives for these citizens.  However, this strategy may not work for couples who feel it advantageous to have more children.  To combat this, we must work on educating the developing world and making them aware that reproducing more is not always the best option.  For those who are still holding out, it also may be effective to offer tax breaks or other concessions to women who give birth to fewer kids.

Although the population continues to grow (and will for the next several decades), many researchers estimate that the world population will hit a maximum sometime in the mid to late 21st century, while others see it continuing to grow into the 22nd century.  This is mostly because of the increasing global per capita GDP, also known as income.  Studies have shown that as average income increases, the number of children born per woman decreases.  This scenario will be a win-win for humanity, as it will curb overpopulation while indicating a higher standard of living for people all around the world.

Despite the fact that population growth will come to a halt sometime in the future, unfortunately it is still a problem in today’s day and age.  There are a couple ways in which overpopulation negatively affects the environment, one of which being depletion of natural resources.  There’s only so much that can go around, and with more people competing for resources, many individuals will be left out.  The easiest examples of these are water and food, which are often hard to come by in some parts of the developing world.  For food, the increased demand leads to increased production, which ends up causing widespread deforestation, something we’ve talked about at length in past weeks.  If we’re going to protect our vital resources, we must first start with controlling the things that consume them: humans.

Another effect of overpopulation is the overall degradation of the environment.  With more people living on the planet, more people are driving cars, using electricity, and performing other actions that increase our carbon footprint.  This leads to things like pollution and global warming, which we know bring about rising sea levels, worse air quality, and other adverse effects.  And although not entirely environmental, overpopulation will increase competition for things like jobs and other basic necessities such as clothing and shelter.

Clearly, overpopulation seems to be the driving force behind several concerns we have for our environment.  And worst of all, there’s really nothing that you or I can do about it.  I believe that the best approach to this problem is to focus on cutting back our individual consumption, so that as the world population continues to rise we can refrain from increasing our carbon footprint.  This may sound hard, but it’s one of the only options we have if we are to save our environment from the threat of too much humanity.

Carbon Emissions

Out of all the environmental threats to planet Earth, carbon emissions are one of the ones that people are most familiar with.  Everywhere we go, it seems like we’re always being instructed on ways to reduce our carbon footprint, whether that be through spending less time driving, taking it easy on the air conditioning, or eating less meat.  This is for good reason, too.  Scientists predict that staying at our current emissions levels will bring dire consequences to the environment by as soon as 2030.  This could include large-scale extinction of aquatic organisms and frequent flooding of coastal cities, caused by warmer water temperatures and rising sea levels.

Obviously, carbon emissions are a big problem because they fill the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, thus trapping heat inside and causing the global temperature to steadily increase.  Nearly everyone agrees that we need to cut down on these emissions to reduce the possibility of environmental disaster, but unfortunately this is not currently happening.  After holding steady for 2014 through 2016, carbon emissions rose in 2017 by 1.6 percent and then again in 2018 by a whopping 2.7 percent.

Fig. 1. Global Carbon Project. Carbon Dioxide Emissions.

This all comes in spite of the Paris Climate Agreement, which was signed in 2015 and currently has close to 200 participating countries.  The United States made news on this front when President Trump announced last year that America would be pulling out of this agreement.  Although the Paris Agreement does not include any rigid emissions limits, it represents a collective effort to lower carbon output worldwide.  By withdrawing from this agreement, the U.S. is essentially saying that we don’t care about reducing our country’s carbon footprint.  What’s concerning about this is that other countries may follow in our footsteps and discard the agreement as well.  The Paris Agreement has already had problems with countries not meeting their self-defined carbon goals, so many people believe this accord to be largely ineffective.

Whether or not the Paris Agreement is a waste of resources is up for debate.  But there’s no denying that we can’t survive on our current levels of carbon emissions.  We would have to cut our emissions levels nearly in half by 2030 to prevent the global temperature from rising by 1.5 degrees Celsius, the threshold where most scientists agree that we would start to see catastrophic environmental effects.  After this, we would have to be at “net zero” emissions by 2050, which would only be accomplished by planting trees to absorb carbon dioxide or implementing other ways to remove it from the atmosphere.  And remember, our emissions are currently rising.  At this point, it seems like it would take a miracle to save us from certain disaster.

Although hope may seem bleak, this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t at least attempt to rectify our current situation.  Despite many regulations being rolled back, the EPA still has several guidelines that must be met by corporations.  They are even in the process of implementing the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule, a regulation that would improve the technology and efficiency of coal-fired power plants.  This action alone would reduce power sector emissions by 1 percent, which account for 28 percent of all nationwide emissions.  This may seem like a small number, but every little bit matters in this race against time.

Fig. 2. EPA. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

I truly believe that the solution to this problem lies in the development of new technologies and clean energy sources like solar and wind.  Switching to wind power or manufacturing more fuel-efficient cars would have a great effect on the overall carbon emissions of our country.  However, I’m pessimistic about the willingness of companies to pursue these advances without some sort of outside pressure.  The reason is that undertaking these developments would be costly in the short run, and frankly, CEOs seem to be a lot more concerned about their bottom lines than the future of the environment.

This theme is common across the world, as economic pressure has forced a lot of countries to soften up on carbon regulations and forgo pursuing new technology.  For example, China, who’s emissions levels spiked in recent years, is currently in a recession and has had to ramp up industry to try to climb out of it.  Yang Fuqiang, an energy adviser to the U.S. Natural Resources Defense Council, said of China, “Under pressure of the current economic downturn, some local governments might have loosened supervision on air pollution and carbon emissions.”  Although China is currently in a bit of an emissions rough patch, they are still greatly dedicated toward having a more positive impact on the environment.  They’ve pledged to drop coal to 10 percent of their total energy consumption by 2050 (coal is currently at 60%) and are actually ahead of pace in dropping their carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP.

I understand that carbon emissions are a lot to comprehend, but I implore you not to take them lightly.  Unless drastic changes are made, I’m afraid that we’ll be in for a world of environmental hurt sometime in the near future.  But it’s not too late for you to make a difference.  Cut back on excessive use of electricity, consider driving a more fuel-efficient car, or choose to walk or bike places instead.  We may have a tall mountain to climb, but we can overcome this through a great effort from people all around the world just like you and me.

Beef Production

Although beef production sounds relatively harmless compared to other environmental issues, unfortunately it is the driving force behind many of them.  Beef production is one of the most wasteful industries on the face of the planet, and this drastic misuse of resources doesn’t seem to be nearing an end anytime soon.

Many of you may be asking, “Why is beef production so bad? Isn’t it just like any other industry?”  Although it is similar to other markets, unfortunately beef uses a lot more resources than those other industries.  Beef production is so terrible because it uses excess amounts of land, water, and creates greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide.

First off, the amount of farmland required for livestock ranching is so large that it’s almost ridiculous.  Worldwide, beef only amounts to 5% of protein consumed and only 2% of calories consumed.  Meanwhile, a whopping 60% of the world’s farmland is used for beef production, which is entirely disproportional considering the nutritional value provided by this industry.

Logically, since a lot of the world’s land is used for beef, a lot of the world’s deforestation is be caused by beef.  This holds true especially in the Amazon rainforest, where 91% of deforestation is caused by animal agriculture.  Brazil, the country where most of the Amazon is located, is one of the world’s top beef exporters, hence the excessive livestock ranching.  Beef production uses so much land because ranchers constantly need to clear more land to provide food for their cattle.  Pasture land is also more valuable than forest land, so many speculators choose to clear tracts of land and sell them to ranchers.

Fig. 1. OneGreenPlanet. Livestock Deforestation.

If you recall, in one of my previous blog posts I discussed deforestation’s negative effects on global warming.  Due to the removal of carbon absorbing trees, more greenhouse gases escape to wreak havoc in the atmosphere and accelerate global warming.  Overall, the beef industry accounts for 14.5% of all deforestation worldwide, which is approximately equal to that of the entire transportation sector, meaning that cow meat is just as harmful to the environment as every car, train, and airplane on Earth.  This is partly due to the carbon emissions caused by related deforestation and other factors in beef production.  However, it is also due to methane, a greenhouse gas produced by cattle that has 23 times the destructive power of carbon dioxide.  When accounting for this, animal agriculture and all its byproducts make up 51% of worldwide carbon emissions.

If emissions from the meat industry don’t significantly decrease sometime in the near future, it will be very hard to keep global temperatures from rising to catastrophic levels within our lifetime.

Another negative of beef production is the excessive amount of water is uses.  If you take a look at this graph, you will see that it takes more than triple the amount of water to produce 1 kilogram of beef compared to other animal products and more natural foods.

Fig. 2. Water Footprint Network. Beef Water Use.

This disparity is concerning and is even more pronounced when you consider the fact that is takes 660 gallons of water to produce one hamburger.  This is equivalent to the amount of water you use in the shower over the course of two whole months.  In total, beef production uses 66.5 trillion gallons of water annually, which is equal to the yearly consumption of 750 million households.  This means that the beef industry uses more water than every single American combined.  With so many parts of the developing world (and even our own country) lacking access to clean water, this drastic overuse must be carefully taken into consideration by governments and consumers around the world.

Without a doubt, animal agriculture is one of the driving forces of environmental problems our country is facing.  And unfortunately, this issue isn’t disappearing anytime soon.  Americans consumed a record amount of meat in 2018, an unbelievable 222.2 pounds per person.  As if this isn’t bad enough, global consumption of meat is expected to rise another 76 percent by 2050.

With this outlook, the future of our environment may seem bleak.  However, there are some ways that you can help improve this problem.  The simplest one: give up eating meat, at least in large quantities.  Experts say that this action will reduce your carbon footprint more so than giving up cars.  I realize that giving up meat is a hard sell, and it’s something that I’ll probably never be able to do.  But if we all cut our meat consumption in half, we could possibly avoid a lot of negative environmental impacts in the future.  I realize that this still seems hard, but there are a lot of imitation meats out there that actually taste quite similar to the real thing.  Cutting back on meat consumption would also make us a lot healthier.  At this point, beef production seems to be one of the more serious environmental issues we are facing.  And unless preventive measures are taken, we may be asking “Where’s the beef?” sooner rather than later.

Acid Rain

In terms of environmental threats the Earth is currently facing, acid rain sounds like one of the most menacing.  When many people hear the term “acid rain,” their mind jumps to scenes out of a science fiction movie involving vicious precipitation dissolving everything in sight.  While this would admittedly be pretty cool, it is quite far from the truth.  However, acid rain still poses a serious threat to our environment and must be curtailed as we move further into the 21st century.

Contrary to popular belief, acid rain, or acid deposition, is not necessarily liquid precipitation.  Although it certainly can take the form of rain, acid deposition can also be snow, hail, fog, or even dust.  The only defining characteristic of acid rain is that it must include acidic compounds, such as sulfuric acid or nitric acid.

Now that we know what acid rain is, what causes it?  The answer, like with so many other environmental problems, is pollution.  As humans continue to industrialize at a rapid pace, we constantly pump more and more pollutants into the air.  These chemicals then become absorbed into clouds or latch onto dust particles, causing acid rain to occur.  Today, things like manufacturing and burning of fossil fuels are largely responsible for the pollutants that cause acid rain.  Electric power generators are also a big problem, as two-thirds of sulfur dioxide and one-fourth of nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere come from this source.  As industry continues to grow worldwide, the amount of pollutants spilling into the atmosphere will also keep growing, possibly spelling trouble for many parts of our environment.

Fig. 1. EPA. Acid Rain Pathway.

Fittingly, the first known observation of acid rain took place in the middle of the 19th century, at a time when many parts of the world were industrializing.  In fact, the term “acid rain” was coined in 1852 by the Scottish chemist Robert Angus Smith, who was studying the effects of the precipitation in areas in the United Kingdom.  Attention in the United States wasn’t turned toward this phenomenon until the 1950s, and by two decades later it was declared a regional environmental issue affecting eastern North America and Western Europe.  Since then, the U.S. and many parts of Europe have been able to put regulations in place and cut back on acid rain, but this problem is just now starting to rear its ugly head in developing countries like India and China.

At this point I realize that I still haven’t described acid rain’s effects on people or the environment in general.  Since we’re all living, breathing humans, I’ll first start with how acid rain affects us.  The good news: it doesn’t.  According to researchers from Georgia State University, “Acid rain looks, feels, and tastes just like clean rain. The harm to people from acid rain is not direct. Walking in acid rain, or even swimming in an acid lake, is no more dangerous than walking or swimming in clean water.”  As acid rain presents no direct threat to humans, it’s easy to see how this problem can be ignored.  But we must be careful to not dispel the risks acid rain poses to the environment at large.

Acid rain has devastating effects on several parts of nature and can even be detrimental to things like buildings and statues.  Trees have been shown to be especially vulnerable to acid rain.  Acid rain harms trees by breaking down the protective coating on their leaves, as well as by lowering the pH of the soil, causing the growth of trees to be stunted.  One study from 2005 found that the health of spruce trees in Russia had been severely lowered due to the acidification of soil from acid rain.  The same study also warned about the possible effects on trees in the Adirondack and Catskill regions of New York, especially since the soil there is more likely to be negatively affected by acid rain.

Fig. 2. Reference.com. Acid Rain Forest.

Additionally, acid rain can affect the biodiversity of water ecosystems.  The acidity of most healthy lakes lies around a pH of 7 (neutral), with some lakes being closer to 6.5.  However, acid rain can drastically lower this pH to between 4 and 5.  Once the acidity reaches this level, most species of fish and other aquatic animals cannot survive, causing the lakes to become barren and uninhabited.

Finally, acid rain can have adverse effects on certain structures, especially those made of limestone.  These include buildings, statues, and even gravestones.  Acid rain causes their features and appearances to become somewhat distorted, leading to deterioration occurring at an accelerated rate.

Obviously, acid rain isn’t beneficial in any way, so it’s a necessity to take steps to eliminate it.  As mentioned, regulations and new technologies adopted by western countries have helped to relieve our forests and lakes from the acid rain crisis we had back in the 1980s.  However, if we are to get rid of acid rain worldwide, it will take a bigger commitment toward shifting our energy production away from fossil fuels and instead to renewable resources, like solar and wind power.

You can take steps to help, too.  The EPA recommends cutting down on use of automobiles and electricity as a way to help stop acid rain.  These utilities rely heavily on fossil fuel and are thus detrimental to solving the issue at hand.  Acid rain may not be as large of a problem as it once was, but as long as countries continue to industrialize, acid rain is not going anywhere, and it may just come back with more force than we realize.

China’s Cancer Villages

In many parts of the world, environmental stability has been sacrificed in pursuit of economic progress.  This is especially true in China, who recently took over the top spot as the world’s largest economy (in terms of GDP).  However, to reach this status, China has emphasized economic expansion so much that the cleanliness of their air and water has suffered as a result.  This pollution has led to certain parts of the country having absurd rates of cancer among their inhabitants, with the government doing nothing but sitting back and watching the carnage.

Over the past thirty years, cancer mortality rates in China have soared 80%, driving it to become the leading cause of death in the country.  This coincides with China’s meteoric rise to the top of the global economy, possibly indicating a link between the two.  And if you talk to residents, this is something they will unanimously confirm.  A doctor who treats patients in China’s Liuchong village says, “All this pollution is illegal, but what can we do? We’re just ordinary people, and we’re stuck here.”  The doctor, who has had to remain anonymous due to threats from a Chinese factory owner, also says, “Patients come to see me every day because they feel weak and dizzy. I estimate 80 to 90 percent of the people in this village are suffering from low white blood cell counts or anemia.”

The presence of such staggering rates of sickness even led the Chinese government to issue an official statement about pollution and cancer villages.  A portion of the document reads, “China has been producing and utilizing toxic chemical products. Many places experienced a drinking water crisis and pollution caused serious social issues like the emergence of cancer villages.”  Although this statement doesn’t show the slightest bit of remorse, it does indicate that government officials understand how widespread the problem is.  China is currently home to an estimated 459 cancer villages which spread over the eastern and southern parts of the country.  In many of these towns, the rate of cancer is as much as 50% higher than in the rest of China.

Fig. 1. China.org.cn. Cancer Villages.

As previously mentioned, much of this is due to pollution, both in the air and water.  Government reports say that about 70% of Chinese lakes and rivers are polluted, leading to an estimated 190 million people drinking contaminated water, or about 1 in every 7 citizens.  This contamination is the direct byproduct of the presence of large factories, especially those along the banks of rivers.  China’s government has tried to crack down on factories pumping waste into sources of water, but many plants find ways around these regulations.  For example, Wei Dongying, an environmental activist in China, says, “Today, factories take care not to pollute during the day but when I’m fishing at night, I can see them pumping waste into the river.”  Stories like these are becoming increasingly common, as Chinese manufacturers continue to evade government intervention in pursuit of maximizing profit.

While government accountability for pollution in China continues to increase ever so slowly, officials are still incredibly dodgy and apprehensive to take responsibility.  Wei Dongying, the activist we were just discussing, has been arrested dozens of times and has her phone under government surveillance.  She even spent ten days in prison just for filing a complaint against a detergent factory.  These aren’t isolated incidents, either.  The anonymous doctor we previously mentioned has received death threats from factory owners, along with any other villagers who threaten to speak badly about the plant.  The doctor says of Zhong Shoubin, owner of Dasheng Chemical, “He has told us that if we say anything bad about his company, he’ll have us killed.”  The fact that top businessmen can get away with threats like these is incredibly concerning, and shows me that the Chinese government isn’t too serious about overcoming these obstacles.

Fig. 2. Schmitz, Rob. Dasheng Chemical.

Meanwhile, thousands of people continue to die of pollution-induced cancer every year, with only few signs of sympathy from the government.  This state of affairs has left citizens to take the lead on ensuring clean water for villagers.  One of these good Samaritans, known as Mr. Huo, has installed over 40 systems along the Upper Huai River to get fresh water to households, schools, and villages.  Huo works as part of the Waterkeeper Alliance, who describe themselves as “the largest and fastest growing nonprofit solely focused on clean water.”  The Alliance has a team of “Waterkeepers” throughout China who are working to diagnose, treat, and protect sources of clean water, so that all citizens can live worry-free.

In addition to the efforts of the Waterkeeper Alliance, the Chinese government passed a strict pollution control law that went into effect last year.  This law provides a lot of hope for the future, and it will be interesting to see if the quality of life in China improves as a result of it.  But although countless villages continue to be plagued by cancer, journalists sense a feeling of renewed hope among inhabitants.  This hope is that one day their neighbors and relatives won’t die of cancer at alarming rates.  Hope that they’ll be able to freely access clean water for drinking and bathing.  And hope that someday, they’ll be able to live normal lives.

Global Warming

When most people think about environmental issues facing the Earth, one of the first things that comes to mind is global warming.  Global warming is exactly what it sounds like, an increase in the air, land, and water temperature of the planet.  This is caused by the greenhouse effect, which is a result of increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants in the atmosphere.  Due to this, the global temperature of the Earth has risen about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880.  Although this amount sounds incredibly small, two-thirds of this warming has occurred since 1975, which still may not seem like a lot.  However, look at this graph of global temperature over the past thousand years.

Fig. 1. Skeptical Science. Global Temperature.

When viewing this, it can easily be seen that our current situation is an anomaly.  Global temperatures have never spiked this high in the modern era, and unfortunately this may be a sign of things to come.  Scientists estimate that if global warming continues to occur at its current rate, the Earth’s temperature will increase another 8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.  Remember, a 1.4-degree jump is considered a lot, so 8 degrees would be no less than catastrophic.

Although many effects of climate change will not be seen until the future, we in the United States been exposed to quite a few already, such as more frequent extreme weather.  From hurricanes constantly battering our coastal regions to horrific wildfires and mudslides ravaging California, severe weather has reared its ugly head increasingly more in recent years.  Hard evidence of this can be seen through the monumental expenses these events have caused.  In the years from 1980 through 2015, natural disasters and other weather-related events cost the United States an average of $5.2 billion dollars in losses annually (adjusted for inflation).  However, if you single out 2011 through 2015, you can see that the average cost jumps to $10.8 billion dollars per year, more than twice the previous amount.

Another potentially terrible effect of global warming is higher sea levels.  This is in part due to the rapid melting of the polar ice caps.  Interestingly, temperatures at the North and South Pole are rising twice as fast as in other parts of the world, causing glaciers to disappear at breakneck speeds.  In fact, Glacier National Park in Montana, created by President Taft in 1910, was once home to around 150 glaciers.  However, that number has dropped to less than 30, with the surviving glaciers having two-thirds fewer area than they once did.  David Fagre, a research scientist from the U.S. Geological Survey Global Change Research Program, says, “Things that normally happen in geologic time are happening during the span of a human lifetime, it’s like watching the Statue of Liberty melt.”  At this rate, most, if not all, of these glaciers will be gone within the next 30 years, a foreboding sign for ice caps in other parts of the world as well.

Fig. 2. Staehli, Bernhard. Melting Ice Caps.

However, the expansion of warming ocean water will have an even larger effect on rising sea levels than melting glaciers.  As the temperature of seawater continues to increase, the molecules of said water get excited and spread apart, causing the water to expand and take up more space.  This effect will only get more pronounced in the future, and scientists are worried about its possibly destructive effects.

With glaciers melting at an unmatched pace, accompanied by the expansion of warming ocean waters, it is predicted that global sea levels will rise by one to four feet by the year 2100.  Once again, this number seems minimal, until you realize that most of the world’s biggest cities were constructed right at sea level.  This rise would leave parts of New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Mumbai, Sydney, and Rio de Janeiro all underwater, possibly within our lifetimes.

Amazingly, with all the evidence that humans are causing climate change, a large number of Americans still continue to deny our harmful impact.  Currently, 97% of climate scientists agree that human activity is the main cause of global warming.  However, only 6 in 10 regular Americans see humans as the problem, and as many as 30% of us deny that climate change is happening at all.  These statistics could be problematic in the future, especially considering that the United States just pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord.  If we are to confront global warming head on, it will begin with convincing our own citizens that we are the ones responsible for it.  Only then can we make strides toward reducing our massive carbon footprint.

This is where it falls on us.  Our constant use of gas-guzzling cars, unnecessary aerosols, and other destructive devices has led us to the predicament we’re currently in.  However, I believe that it’s not too late to reverse the drastic effects of climate change.  It will take a big commitment from world leaders, local government officials, and all of us, but it’s something we must do if we want to stay out of hot water, quite literally.

Deforestation

Out of all the threats to our environment in the 21st century, deforestation may be one of the most urgent.  Deforestation is the systematic removal of forests or sections of trees from land to be converted for commercial or public use.  Most deforestation occurs in tropical rainforests and can have devastating effects on wildlife and human populations in these areas.


Fig. 1. Erlangga, Aulia. Deforestation in Sumatra.

First, let’s take a look at the reasons why deforestation occurs.  According to OneGreenPlanet, the five largest causes of deforestation are agricultural expansion, livestock ranching, logging, infrastructure expansion, and overpopulation.

For agricultural expansion, deforestation is the result of increased demands for goods like palm oil, soybeans, and other commodities.  In fact, Indonesia, the world’s largest producer of palm oil, was recognized in the 2008 Guinness Book of World Records as the “Fastest Forest Destroyer.”

With livestock ranching, the large worldwide demand for beef has played a pivotal role in the expansion of deforestation for these purposes.  For example, Brazil, one of the world’s top beef exporters, has seen an area of forest three-fourths the size of Texas cut down since 1990.

As far as logging is concerned, most deforestation caused by this is actually illegal.  Illegal logging has become a large source of revenue for people in countries in the developing world, such as in Indonesia (once again).  Indonesia is near the top of the world in terms of timber exportation, but many people would be surprised to learn that as much as 80% of this exporting is done illicitly.  Worldwide, illegal logging is a financial windfall for organized crime groups, with $10 to $15 billion dollars being generated each year.

Infrastructure expansion refers to the building of new and improved roads through previously uninhabited regions, which doesn’t necessarily sound like a bad thing.  However, these roads give loggers and settlers easy access to areas that used to be hard to reach, meaning that they will have more opportunities to exploit the forests for their own gain.

Finally, all of these first four causes can be seen as a result of overpopulation.  With today’s global population exceeding 7 billion people, demands for goods and services are at an all-time high, leaving areas like rainforests vulnerable to companies looking to make a quick buck.  Interestingly, deforestation is growing at a comparable rate to population growth, suggesting that this logical trend is very true.

Fig. 2. United Nations. Population and Deforestation.

Now that we outlined the causes of deforestation, how widespread is this removal of forests?  First of all, many people don’t realize that forests are one of our greatest natural resources.  They cover a whopping 31% of land area on our planet and house many of our most endangered species.  Not to mention that 1.6 billion people rely on forests for their many benefits, including food, water, clothing, medicine, and shelter.  And did I mention that they provide us with sweet, sweet oxygen?  However, forests are being cut down at an alarming rate.  Currently, 18.7 million acres of forest are disappearing each year, a number equivalent to 36 football fields being cut down every minute.  If something is not done about this, deforestation will continue to grow until no forests are left at all.

Sure, deforestation is a big problem.  But what are all the effects?  One of the most potentially catastrophic outcomes of deforestation is the rapid advancement of global warming, particularly due to greenhouse gases (like CO2) in the atmosphere.  Elementary school science class reminds us that trees absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen.  Well, when trees are cut down, fewer of them are around to absorb CO2, leading to carbon dioxide becoming trapped in the atmosphere, thus increasing global warming.  One study estimates that four years of deforestation creates a carbon footprint of the same magnitude as every airplane flight in the course of human history through 2025, combined.

Another devastating effect of deforestation is the loss of biodiversity.  Rainforests cover only 7% of Earth’s land but are home to about 50% of all its plant and animal species, many of which are endangered.  In fact, as many as 135 species of plants, animals, and insects are going extinct every day due to deforestation.  If this isn’t bad enough, scientists believe that cures for many diseases could be found within these rare life forms, potentially jeopardizing the future of human health if we don’t keep them alive.

Finally, soil erosion, flooding, and loss of indigenous homelands are also the result of deforestation.  In addition to everything else, trees are also great at retaining water and depositing it back into the soil and atmosphere.  Without them, soil used for agriculture erodes after a period of time, rendering it useless for growing food.  When this happens, farmers just clear more trees, and then more trees after that soil dries out, and then more after that, in this self-perpetuating cycle.  Also, destruction of coastal forests can leave inlands defenseless against floods.  This proved to be fatal in 2008, when Cyclone Nargis hit Myanmar, killing over 100,000 people.  Scientists say that if mangrove forests along the Burmese coast had not recently been cut down, the cyclone would have hit with much less force.  Lastly, when forests are destructed, so are the indigenous people who live among them.  These people rely on the forests for basically everything, meaning that when deforestation occurs, they are left with nothing.  As these tribes don’t have legal ownership of their land either, there are very few protections against their villages and ways of life being ruined by deforestation.

At this point, many of you are probably wondering what you can do to prevent this travesty.  Some simple things that can be done are recycling, trying to go paperless, and eating less meat.  Other than that, lobbying for a cause is the best way to make your voice heard, whether through contacting a representative, attending a protest, or simply stating your beliefs.  It’s time that we took care of deforestation, because this exploitation is taking its toll on large regions of the developing world, and unfortunately, we may be next.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

What if I told you that there was a gigantic patch of plastic just sitting in middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere between California and Hawaii.  Even worse, what if I told you that this region is 1.6 million square kilometers large, making it twice the size of Texas and three times the size of France.

At this point, I’m sure many of you are asking, “How is it even possible for plastic to contaminate such a large region?”  Unfortunately, much of this is due to humans.  According to The Ocean Cleanup, it is estimated that between 1.15 and 2.41 million tons of plastic enter the ocean from rivers each year.  From there, most of these plastics float along currents and end up in one of five offshore accumulation zones, the largest of which being the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, or GPGP for short.


Fig. 1. Remarkably. Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

As mentioned, plastic accumulates in the GPGP by traveling along currents, namely the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre.  In this region lies the millions of pounds of plastic and other trash that makes up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.  Luckily, this slow-moving, counterclockwise system of currents is pretty barren as far as oceans go, hosting only phytoplankton, some small fish, and minimal breezes.  For this reason, most fisherman and sailors avoid this patch as well, leaving the plastic to accumulate with reckless abandon.

I realize that I still haven’t established why the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is such a big problem.  After all, it’s just a bunch of plastic sitting out in a relatively uninhabited portion of the ocean, it’s not like you’re going to accidentally stumble upon it one day.

As much as I wish that the GPGP was insignificant, unfortunately it isn’t.  Plastic is notorious for being unable to biodegrade, which means it doesn’t naturally break down into smaller pieces.  However, plastic does photodegrade, meaning that constant exposure to sunlight can break it down into miniscule fragments.  Once larger debris breaks down into these microplastics, it becomes incredibly hard to remove them from the water, and marine animals often mistake them for food.  Additionally, 84% of this plastic was found to contain at least one Persistent Bio-accumulative Toxic, or PBT, chemical.  Therefore, when animals mistakenly eat plastic, they also consume the harmful toxins that come along with it.

Two species, the sea turtle and the albatross, have had particular trouble differentiating between food and garbage.  In fact, sea turtles captured in or near the GPGP had a diet that consisted of up to 74% plastic, not to even mention the thousands that die from fishing nets every year.  Meanwhile, albatrosses have possibly had even more trouble with ocean trash.  Each year on Midway Island, which is near the garbage patch, albatrosses give birth to 500,000 chicks.  Unfortunately, as many as 200,000 of these birds die due to their parents feeding them plastic that they mistakenly believe is food.  On a larger scale, more than a million birds and marine animals die every year from eating plastic or getting caught in debris.  If that statistic doesn’t call for a change, I’m not sure what will.


Fig. 2. Perez, Francis. Sea Turtle in Net.

However, if the safety of wildlife still doesn’t concern you, maybe the concept of bioaccumulation will.  Bioaccumulation means that the matter consumed by prey eventually ends up in predators, and so on up the food chain.  According to this principle, plastic consumed by sea turtles and other aquatic animals will eventually end up in the gastrointestinal systems of humans, barring some miracle.  As previously stated, 84% of these materials were found to have toxic chemicals as well, possibly putting humans in harm’s way.


Fig. 3. The Ocean Cleanup. Bioaccumulation in Humans.

Along with the health and biodiversity hazards associated with the Great Pacific Garbage Patch comes negative economic implications.  According to the United Nations, plastic pollution in marine environments costs $13 billion every year in beach cleanups and financial losses to fisheries.  These costs will only continue to increase as more garbage keeps streaming into our lakes and oceans.

Logically, attempts have been taken to try to clean up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, but initial results haven’t been very encouraging.  This past fall, a $20 million project was embarked on by the Ocean Cleanup to try to remove large amounts of plastic.  However, it was determined that the apparatus the team was using was actually pretty bad at collecting plastic.  Boyan Slat, inventor of the device (a sort of floating barrier), said, “What we’re trying to do has never been done before. So, of course we were expecting to still need to fix a few things before it becomes fully operational.”  Slat and his team have gone back to the drawing board, so hopefully they can come up with an efficient way to remove this devastating trash from the Pacific Ocean.

If at first you weren’t concerned about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, I hope you are now.  Unless we take drastic action, this problem will continue to grow for years to come.  And of course, this starts with all of us.  Throwing away disposable plastic has terrible effects on the environment and is an action that will take hundreds of years to undo.  Therefore, always try to recycle any plastic you use.  And better yet, try to use as little plastic as possible.  It might not seem important now, but the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is growing, and it would be best not to get caught dead in the water.