Bottled Water

In high school I was a part of a group called the Watershed Project. In this group we would run tests on water from different streams and rivers and determine the water quality. After the tests were run we would try to come up with ways that would make the water less polluted and better quality. Since then I have had a personal boycott of bottled water. I think its just stupid to spend my money on something that you can get for free. From taking bio 230 I also know that plastic water bottles are made from oil and they can only be recycled a certain number of times before they cant be reused. After looking on the internet I have found yet another reason to avoid plastic water bottles, the health risks.

Plastic water bottles contain a chemical called bisphenol A and a recent study at Harvard University and by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention shows that drinking water from plastic bottles increases the levels of this chemical in the body by 70%. This chemical, a necessary ingredient in plastic that makes it hard and transparent, also disrupts hormonal systems in the human body. This can lead to increased chances of reproductive defects, brain damage, cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes. This has an increased effect on infants and small children, which is even more of an issue when you consider that many food containers and bottles are made with a plastic that contains the same chemical, bisphenol A.

http://www.naturalnews.com/027236_BPA_health_disease.html



http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/greenberg/archives/2008/02/bottled_water.html

Wolves

Recently Professor Hirsch asked us to sort of post up something regarding our background and how we got to how we think today. I'm going to be honest when I say I don't really understand he wants us to go about that, so this post is sort of a shot in the dark.
My concern for the environment and a sustainable way of life was a direct consequence of my parents. I can't remember a summer we didn't spend in the Adirondacks camping and hiking, I loved to be out there. As I got older the trips got more intense and I loved it more and more. It was more then just enjoying the outdoors though, thanks much in part to my mom I grew a respect and connection to the woods. As time went on and tales of forest destruction, global warming and extinction started to actually started to mean something to me, I became very concerned. I quickly realized how closely everything was related, even as close to home as the Adirondacks. Global warming could lead to a change in the environment, could kill animals and could ruin much of my beloved northern forests. There where many global threats with very local affects and I made sure to educate myself as best I could. Perhaps my quest is selfish in that It began because I didn't want to lose what was close to me but it continues on today in a desire to protect the earth.
I guess my focus is on wildlife. I've always really enjoyed the company of animals regardless if they where pets or wild. I also feel they face the most immediate threat. Global warming, renewable energy, population and pollution will affect humans directly and these topics are starting to receive positive attention. However preservation of wildlife is not so lucky. While wildlife are affected by all those problems I listed above they too face other threats.
Perhaps the largest threat they face is us. Whether its clubbing of seals in Canada or the aerial hunting of wolves in Alaska, wildlife faces real time threats every moment.
While clubbing of seals is tragic, I feel aerial hunting of wolves is the problem which can be attacked more directly, mainly because it occurs in our own country. Simply stated there is no reason for such a form of hunting. Arguments about subsistence hunters and competition just don't make any scientific sense.
Let me first disprove any notion that it is subsistence and local hunters who use helicopters to hunt wolves. “Twice in the past 12 years, Alaska voters have approved state ballot initiatives to limit the use of aircraft to kill wildlife—and twice the state legislature, encouraged and abetted by the [appointed] board of game, has overridden the citizen-passed laws to restore use of aircraft,” states Rodger Schlickeisen of the non-profit Defenders of Wildlife.
Of course, the people killing the wolves are doing to to control predator population and allow subsistence hunters a chance at bagging some Caribu to survive. However many traditional hunters believe this hunting violates the ethics of hunting and fair chase.
Of course the Alaskan Board of game says their decision to allow aerial hunting of wolves is backed in science. However a lot scientists disagree.
It is problems like these that seem to avoid the public eye because it does not affect most people. Who cares about wolves in Alaska that we never see or hear? Even for people who care it is difficult to maintain awareness about such problems when you have your own life and your own concerns. This is why I fear for wildlife, they have no voice and rely solely on people to represent them, which is not an easy task to say the least.

Is Plastic Better Than Glass?

The other weekend on a visit home I went out to a restaurant with my family for dinner. I have a bad habit of drinking soda for dinner when I go to restaurants, so my brother and I usually order our favorite soda root beer. This time they came in the glass bottles they were originally sealed in (IBC root beer to be exact). I was not surprised, because this is not the first restaurant I have been to that serves glass bottled root beer. However I have noticed that root beer is probably the only soda that is ever served in a glass bottle at restaurants. Let’s face it; most beverages have made the transition from glass to plastic. Coke no longer uses its classic glass bottles as seen advertised in those cute polar bear commercials we all know and love. There is no more milk man who delivers your milk in glass bottles at your door step, and takes the old ones to be used again. Now we have to go to our local Stewart’s gas station or supermarket to pick up a couple of giant plastic gallons of milk to last for the week to fill up those bowls of inviting unhealthy cereals made of corn before school. Yes, beer is still sold in bottles, but far more in cans, and even in most major stadiums, parks, and venues have beer companies made the change to plastic. In the distant past, the glass deposit soda bottle was the only kind of soda bottle available. Plastic bottles are an environmental travesty doing a great job polluting our environment as well as causing health risks. Glass milk bottles were delivered, taken back by the milk men when empty to be washed and sterilized, then used once again. Plastic cannot be sterilized, but sure they can be recycled, at least the ones that actually end up in recycling bins. This is supposed to be the eco-friendly thing to do however they can only be turned into another bottle once. ‘Eco-friendly companies have made efforts however to expand other uses for recycled plastic bottles including transforming them into things such as: plastic lumber, garden supplies, pallets, crates, plastic pipe, kayaks, school lunch trays, park benches, railroad ties, carpet, and fiberfill for clothing, pillows and sleeping bags,’ according to Earth911.com. I came across a very comical and simplified, yet vivid excerpt written by Jules May of the cycle of a plastic bottle. Here it is…

““I’ve got to load them into the back of my car and drive (carbon … carbon) to the dump, where they’re put into a skip. Then a lorry comes along, picks up the skip, and drives (carbon, carbon) to the docks where the bottles are poured into containers and loaded onto a ship which steams halfway around the world (CARBON! CARBON!) to China, where they all get “recycled”.
You know what happens in China? There’s actually not much of any use that you can make out of waste plastic – it’s no good for food, so you can’t make new bottles out of it – so half of it gets burned right away on huge, stinking bonfires – so there goes our clean air. The other half gets shredded, drawn, and eventually rendered down into clothes (fleeces, blankets, and so on), loaded back on a ship, and sent (CARBON! CARBON!) back here, so we can wear our garbage.
And when our garbage clothes eventually wear out? What then? We throw them away (because not even the Chinese can think of anything to do with old woollies). It goes into landfill (because, remember, you can’t burn it). And says there for – you have been listening, haven’t you? – 24,000 years! Did you know that 75% of non-biodegradable landfill is clothes? So it ends up as landfill anyway, in spite of all that transportation and processing.”

This never really hit home to me until I came to college and became a member of the Medical Fraternity. Every semester as a group we go door to door in downtown Albany asking for clothing and non-perishable items that we will donate for them. Surprisingly on such short notice people out of the goodness of their hearts manage to gather up a good amount of items. This past Saturday morning, after about three hours only, out of curiosity we counted up how many articles of clothing we collected which came out to 913!!! Walking door to door we only made it to a couple of neighborhoods. It is amazing how wasteful humans are, and especially in this case how much clothes we must go through and dispose of globally. Plastic bottles are definitely a convenience. They are lighter cheaper to deliver and truck, and not breakable; But even to create plastic, petroleum, our precious and quickly depleting natural resource, is being used not to mention the toxic chemicals that come from them when being disposed. If you ask me plastic bottles need to go. How much are we willing to lose for convenience, apparently money still has a chokehold on the well being of our planet and ultimately our lives.

References

• Article 1

http://earth911.com/plastic/plastic-bottles/what-happens-next-to-plastic-bottles/

• Article 2

http://julesmay.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/why-recycling-is-bad-for-the-environment/

Commercial Hunting

After reading this weeks readings in the Cartoon Guide to the Environment I realized what I wanted to blog about since it is something that has irked me for quite some time. I am talking about commercial hunting, the very source of rainforest diversity depletion, food chains getting disrupted, illegal whaling in Japan, and much other environmental factors gone awry.

Before the world was industrialized that is to say before we started a mass market that could be traded anywhere in the world, people would hunt, fish, and farm for their own family or their own community. Now it is at the point that we can get generally anything we want from anywhere we want so long as there is a demand. Even if the demand is for something that does not provide reasonable food, clothes, and shelter, if the money is there it will be provided. In the process of wanting something exotic and extravagant they are just depleting a resource that is too fragile to continue hunting without the animal going extinct or greatly effecting its habitat. This leads to regulations and even with regulations the demand is just as high which continues the hunting but for a higher price.

An example of an ecosystem being greatly disrupted by commercial hunting in the rain forests in south Asia, Africa, and in the Amazonian. Since the diversity of species is quite numerous in these regions they are targeted for the rarity that appeals to the general public. Regulations in these area are far lower then they should be such as in the Amazonian rainforest only 1.6 percent is protected. So the rest is free reign for commercial hunters and loggers to take advantage of. This is reinforced by the communities surrounding these areas since in every market they need workers to help get the products out of these forests so then roads are created and vehicles are mobilized to supply the world with what it wants, regardless of the repercussions it could have on the environment.

On top of products such as Ivory from Elephants or feathers from exotic birds a ever threatening product would come from our sea creatures such as whales and seals. Seals have been hunted for many years but the demand for their warm stylish coats made places such as Canada slaughter houses that was extremely barbaric in action (79% of hunters would skin the seal without the seal even being dead.) It has finally come to its end(not entirely though) but to the extent where countries stopped getting the imports at the rates it used to be. Another product is whale which you can see right on the discovery channel “Whale Wars” which is about the illegal poaching of Whales in Japan. Although they say they are hunting the whales for scientific research you can buy a whale burger anywhere in Japan. The Japanese deny that they are illegally killing whales yet they have propaganda all over Japan urging people to eat whale since they were needed to be killed off to preserve the fish environment that Japan is so dependent on. There is no evidence that the whale community has this effect at all.

In the end you just realize how ridiculous people are about getting what they want even if there are dire effects that come from it. Who are we to effect Earth's ecosystems in the way that we do only to benefit ourselves and could easily do without? When will we learn???



http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0430-hunting.html
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/08/23/japan-whaling-scientific-research-or-commercial-hunting/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_hunting
-Chapter 9 in Cartoon Guide to the Environment

Populatio too large

I can't say that I have a hugely profound statement to say, but it seems that a lot of this courses material all points to the same conclusion. In order for the human race to continue after oil the population of the earth has to drop back to its carrying capacity. This is something I have heard before, but not from scholarly origins. About a year ago I began to follow the conspiracy movement going on in America. I was frustrated by what I saw going on in the government and I wanted some answers that satisfied my intellect. What I found was that the large portion of groups all pointed to a shady organization with the soul purpose of world domination. The organizations plan was to seize control by varying mechanisms and to eventually reduce the earth’s population drastically so that they could be more easily managed. This is interesting that this supposed organizations plan aligns itself with that of the earth itself.

It makes me wonder, if we are to resume our previous ways of living before oil, to return to the earth, how many people have to die for that to really work. It's obvious that the earth’s carrying capacity has been exceeded, but who decides who gets cut loose for the betterment of the rest. If we are to increase the carrying capacity of the earth using renewable resources and efficient technology, how far will we have to stretch to make up the difference? The facts are already here, we are about to reach peak oil without any real plan for the other side of the hill, so it seems obvious who will decide who lives and who dies. The answer is that we have already made the decision for ourselves. If you live in suburbia and oil becomes too expensive to afford, not just for you, but for everyone you know, then how will you get to the grocery store. For that matter how will the trucking companies afford to get the food to the grocery store? How will the farmers afford their petroleum based fertilizers to even grow the crops? The answer is, they won’t. The people who won’t survive are those who don't know how to survive without oil.

A Man Ahead of His Time

Earlier this week, while I was studying for an anthropology exam, I noticed an interesting connection between an idea by a man Charles Darwin used as a source in his theory of evolution and everything we have have been talking about in our biology class so far. This mans name was Thomas Malthus, a british economist who wrote "Essay on the Principle of Population" in 1798. Darwin was focused on Malthus' observation that animals in the wild often reproduce to have more offspring than can survive, but after reading more about him, I found his ideas about human society to be interesting as well.

Malthus stated that like animals in the wild, man too is capable of overproducing, that it would inevitably happen if left unchecked and it would eventually become a problem with resources as well. I was intrigued when I saw this, that someone way back in the end of the eighteenth century had predicted the events that are happening in the world today. Of course when Malthus wrote these things he was not worried about fossil fuels and alternative energy sources but the food supply and that once rapid population growth began famine would become a global epidemic, and it is unfortunate to say that he was right.

He stated that the decline of living conditions would result from three things: people having too many children, the inability of resources to keep up with the population, and the irresponsibility of the "lower class". Malthus concluded that to keep this problem under control poor people needed to have smaller families. While his view about "classes" may be wrong if everyone began having smaller families it may lessen the burden of the problem we are currently facing, afterall Malthus has been right so far whos to say his solution isnt right as well.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html

Spread the Word

This week in class we discussed a very important and urgent dilemma concerning the extraction and discovery of oil resources throughout the world. I may be the only individual in the class that could say this, but I honestly had no previous background information or education on such a matter. Therefore as one could imagine, the discussion on the Oil Peak Theory was a shocking topic and was a huge wake up call. I can admit that although I believe the reading the newspaper and/or watching the news is a valuable tool for staying updated on current events, I have not yet formed a daily habit of doing so. This I believe is one reasons for my lack of knowledge on this topic. I would like to believe that I am not the only person who can say this. 

I gradually became more curious as to the rest of the publics extent of knowledge on the Oil Peak Theory, so i decided to find out for myself. I currently reside in University apartments. Being in an apartment setting, I decided to confront a few fellow students and question their knowledge/feelings on this particular topic (these were students from a wide range of majors). I was surprised at what I discovered. Out of  ten students, ONE was able to tell me a very brief description of what an oil peak is and the effects it may have on our future. The remaining students had, like me, no or very little knowledge of the subject. If this is such an important, life altering problem, why is there such a lack of education on this topic?

This isn't a problem a hand full of people can fix themselves, this is going to take the determination of the whole country..even the whole world! If it wasn't for this class, when would have I discovered this huge problem sitting right in front of me? When will my fellow college students discover this catastrophe waiting to happen?  We, the current college students, will soon be joining the working force and will be assisting in running this country. It would serve a great value if WE had the proper education on this matter so that we can change or adapt our ways of living NOW to be sure that we will not corner ourself into a devastating situation LATER.