Being environmentally friendly, or, as many call it, green, is a great thing. Well, it’s a great thing when you actually want to aid in keeping Mother Nature alive. The topic has become more of a fad in these past few years rather than becoming a gradual migration of culture. I have to admit, it is great seeing this craze to help out the earth, but don’t all fads end at some point? What happens when the fad dies down and we return to our normal selves?
Let’s take a close look at something that generally doesn’t take center stage with being green: Smoking. I’d like to complete a brief calculation if you wouldn’t mind. I’ve read that there are about 650 million daily smokers in the world. Let’s make an assumption that each one of the 650 million smokers only smokes 1 cigarette a day. I have no clue how much a cigarette weighs, so lets just say 1 gram. Let me take you through the calculation: 1 cigarette times 650 million smokers times 1 gram equals 650 million grams. Multiply 650 million grams times 0.0352739619 ounces per gram and then divide by 16 ounces to get the answer in pounds.
The answer is around 1,433,000 pounds of cigarettes disposed of per day. You’d like to know how many pounds a year? More than 523 million pounds a year!
Remember, these answers are simply estimations. If a cigarette weighs more than a gram, the answer goes up. If a cigarette weighs less than a gram, the answer goes down. If more than the estimated 650 million smokers smoke more than 1 cigarette a day, the answer goes up. And so on. You get the point.
This isn’t counting all of the smokers who smoke packs or cartons a day. The number is also not including the packaging of the cigarettes. I would have to say that I think my calculation is somewhat conservative.
One of my friends was talking to me about the issue with smokers who so callously throw their cigarettes out of their car window or onto the ground when they are finished smoking. One of the examples I could give to my friend was a man who had 4 cigarettes (which are now lying in the middle of the street somewhere) during his 15 minute morning commute. Another example was my friend’s coworker who was working out in a wooded area. The area was very dry due to a drought. She finished her cigarette and threw it on the ground in a bunch of dry grass. I guess she didn’t take her brain with her to work that day.
But I shouldn’t only pick on smokers. Let’s pick on the people who seem to forget about their green stance in life: those who are “green” to a point.
The only reason I bring this topic up is because of a Toyota Prius owner that sped past me on the highway going far faster than the speed limit. I cannot comprehend why such a person would drive past the speed limit in the Prius; after all, if it was an emergency, the person should have called 911 for their services. The Prius is known for getting absolutely fantastic mpg efficiency. However, when one drives the car in excess of 55 miles per hour, gas consumption increases dramatically in turn decreasing the mpg rating. The Prius owner who decided to buy a car for better efficiency is doing the exact opposite by speeding. The owner probably bought the car and either does not understand cars and gas consumption or returned to his normal driving habits after owning the car for a while. I’m guessing the latter, not the former. What a shame.
I could list groups of people one after another who waste energy, litter, or steal from good old Mother Nature. Fortunately for you I am ending my post. If this post made no sense or you found something wrong with my cigarette numbers or you would simply like to talk, feel free to comment.
I guess the moral of the post is that we should stop smoking and compare our everyday habits to green living. Good luck!
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Navajo Nation and Pollution
Just imagine how much smog and pollution would be generated by adding 1.5 million cars on the road. Imagine how bad that would be for the environment? What if I would tell you that the Navajo nation (well, some people of the Navajo nation) would like to build a coal-burning power plant that would produce smog with the equivalent of 1.5 million cars? Would you believe that a people revered for their kindness of spirit towards the earth and all of its creatures would want to do this to the very same earth and all of its creatures?
The plant would produce an estimated 12 million tons of carbon dioxide by generating 1,500 megawatts of electricity for Phoenix and Las Vegas. Does Las Vegas really need to power more lights? I guess when $50 million is expected a year, some people decide to burn up their ideals (pun intended).
The Navajo president Joe Shirley Jr. asks “Why pick on the little Navajo nation, when it’s trying to help itself?” The real question is if the Navajo nation is little, how do they finance a $3 billion project?
The plant would produce an estimated 12 million tons of carbon dioxide by generating 1,500 megawatts of electricity for Phoenix and Las Vegas. Does Las Vegas really need to power more lights? I guess when $50 million is expected a year, some people decide to burn up their ideals (pun intended).
The Navajo president Joe Shirley Jr. asks “Why pick on the little Navajo nation, when it’s trying to help itself?” The real question is if the Navajo nation is little, how do they finance a $3 billion project?
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The Chesapeake Bay and Climate Change
Ok, so I wrote this big long summary of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation report for my boss, but it needs to be shorter. So I'm going to let you read the whole thing. Hope you like it!
If you already read the report, don't read this. It's just a (long) summation of the report.
With heightened awareness around global climate change, scientists agree that climate change is deleterious to all tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is in near consensus with climate change’s reality, impacts, and that human activity is to blame. Out of the number of effects of global warming, there are a few which affect the Susquehanna River Basin: higher air and water temperatures, unpredictable weather patterns, and increased storm intensity.
Agriculture and forest production, degraded coldwater fisheries, and an inundation of invasive plants are all associated with the effects of climate change. The Chesapeake Bay will be principally susceptible to increased temperatures and sea level rise, both associated with climate change, due to the Bay’s current conditions and sinking shorelines.
The National Climate Data Center reported a global temperature of about one degree Fahrenheit warmer than at the start of the 20th century. Higher temperatures relate to an increase in water temperatures. Devastating ecological consequences can occur. Dissolved oxygen tends to not “hold” as well in warmer water. With dissolved oxygen being critical for life within the water, this would put high stress on the aquatic species. The warmer water could also exacerbate the Chesapeake Bay’s dead zone by increasing the size and duration of the oxygen-deprived areas.
Adult striped bass, known as rockfish, are an example of water temperature increase having an impact on aquatic life. Rockfish usually avoid water warmer than 76 degrees Fahrenheit by finding refuge in deep, cool water. In the summer, however, rockfish face “temperature-dissolved oxygen squeeze.” This is when dissolved oxygen concentrations in the water drops past the point of survivable water. Rockfish are being increasingly squeezed and forced to live in uncomfortable warm water in order to breathe. Due to the stress of the situation, this can affect the health by changing feeding habits and possibly making them more susceptible to disease.
With a combination of the IPCC’s conservative estimation of a sea level rise of eight inches to two feet by the end of the century and the Chesapeake Bay area’s geologic processes that are drowning the area, the Bay’s future looks dreary. In the Bay area, water level could rise as high as three to four feet by the end of the century. Water levels are rising so fast that environmentally-critical tidal wetlands are no longer able to trap sediments fast enough. The Bay has already lost one island, abandoned four, and three more are submerging (as of 2000). The Mid-Atlantic region could be vulnerable in the future due to sea level rise, flat topography, and subsiding land mass.
Most of the steps that reduce water pollution also aid in curbing sea level rise and temperature increase; the steps also help to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. The oxygen-deprived dead zones in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are expanding due to nitrogen pollution. About one-third of the nitrogen pollution is from the air. The form of nitrogen that is most prevalent is nitrogen oxide which is created by the combustion of fossil fuels. The Bay and its tributaries are also contributing to climate change.
Aside from the estuary emitting increased nitrogen oxide due to nitrogen pollutant loads, the Bay and its tributaries are aiding in the production of methane through bacterial activity in low-oxygen conditions.
The Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are on the Clean Water Act’s “dirty waters” list. In order to be removed from the list, as well as to be beneficial to water quality and climate change, the watershed states (Delaware, New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia) have defined what agricultural conservation techniques need to be put in place. The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement was a pledge between the watershed states and the District of Columbia to reduce the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution that is discharged into the Bay and its tributaries. Each state has developed a Tributary Strategy to achieve goals of pollution reduction.
The execution of region-wide plans will reduce excess nitrogen from entering the Bay by about 65 millions pounds annually. This amount is approximately 60 percent of the reduction needed to restore the Bay and its tributaries. A study by the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies illustrates that agricultural best management practices (BMPs) such as forest buffers, no-till farming, grass buffers, rotational grazing, and covering crops all aid in carbon sequestration. These BMPs could sequester 4.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.
Putting these practices into use could mitigate electricity use of an entire state and improve water quality, aquatic life, and healthy habitats across the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Because the Yale Study only measured the carbon sequestration benefits for only a fraction of the agricultural practices, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation believes the study estimates to be conservative. Other programs that would benefit water quality and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions include, but are not limited to, the endorsement of enhanced nutrient management practices, improving the manure management system, precision feeding, and minimizing farm machinery use. New sources of energy could also replace fossil fuel dependence.
A few keys to reduce nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide are conserving electricity at the industrial, commercial, and residential levels, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using agricultural best management practices, and state and national efforts to increase the use of renewable energy sources.
If you already read the report, don't read this. It's just a (long) summation of the report.
With heightened awareness around global climate change, scientists agree that climate change is deleterious to all tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is in near consensus with climate change’s reality, impacts, and that human activity is to blame. Out of the number of effects of global warming, there are a few which affect the Susquehanna River Basin: higher air and water temperatures, unpredictable weather patterns, and increased storm intensity.
Agriculture and forest production, degraded coldwater fisheries, and an inundation of invasive plants are all associated with the effects of climate change. The Chesapeake Bay will be principally susceptible to increased temperatures and sea level rise, both associated with climate change, due to the Bay’s current conditions and sinking shorelines.
The National Climate Data Center reported a global temperature of about one degree Fahrenheit warmer than at the start of the 20th century. Higher temperatures relate to an increase in water temperatures. Devastating ecological consequences can occur. Dissolved oxygen tends to not “hold” as well in warmer water. With dissolved oxygen being critical for life within the water, this would put high stress on the aquatic species. The warmer water could also exacerbate the Chesapeake Bay’s dead zone by increasing the size and duration of the oxygen-deprived areas.
Adult striped bass, known as rockfish, are an example of water temperature increase having an impact on aquatic life. Rockfish usually avoid water warmer than 76 degrees Fahrenheit by finding refuge in deep, cool water. In the summer, however, rockfish face “temperature-dissolved oxygen squeeze.” This is when dissolved oxygen concentrations in the water drops past the point of survivable water. Rockfish are being increasingly squeezed and forced to live in uncomfortable warm water in order to breathe. Due to the stress of the situation, this can affect the health by changing feeding habits and possibly making them more susceptible to disease.
With a combination of the IPCC’s conservative estimation of a sea level rise of eight inches to two feet by the end of the century and the Chesapeake Bay area’s geologic processes that are drowning the area, the Bay’s future looks dreary. In the Bay area, water level could rise as high as three to four feet by the end of the century. Water levels are rising so fast that environmentally-critical tidal wetlands are no longer able to trap sediments fast enough. The Bay has already lost one island, abandoned four, and three more are submerging (as of 2000). The Mid-Atlantic region could be vulnerable in the future due to sea level rise, flat topography, and subsiding land mass.
Most of the steps that reduce water pollution also aid in curbing sea level rise and temperature increase; the steps also help to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. The oxygen-deprived dead zones in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are expanding due to nitrogen pollution. About one-third of the nitrogen pollution is from the air. The form of nitrogen that is most prevalent is nitrogen oxide which is created by the combustion of fossil fuels. The Bay and its tributaries are also contributing to climate change.
Aside from the estuary emitting increased nitrogen oxide due to nitrogen pollutant loads, the Bay and its tributaries are aiding in the production of methane through bacterial activity in low-oxygen conditions.
The Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are on the Clean Water Act’s “dirty waters” list. In order to be removed from the list, as well as to be beneficial to water quality and climate change, the watershed states (Delaware, New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia) have defined what agricultural conservation techniques need to be put in place. The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement was a pledge between the watershed states and the District of Columbia to reduce the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution that is discharged into the Bay and its tributaries. Each state has developed a Tributary Strategy to achieve goals of pollution reduction.
The execution of region-wide plans will reduce excess nitrogen from entering the Bay by about 65 millions pounds annually. This amount is approximately 60 percent of the reduction needed to restore the Bay and its tributaries. A study by the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies illustrates that agricultural best management practices (BMPs) such as forest buffers, no-till farming, grass buffers, rotational grazing, and covering crops all aid in carbon sequestration. These BMPs could sequester 4.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.
Putting these practices into use could mitigate electricity use of an entire state and improve water quality, aquatic life, and healthy habitats across the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Because the Yale Study only measured the carbon sequestration benefits for only a fraction of the agricultural practices, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation believes the study estimates to be conservative. Other programs that would benefit water quality and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions include, but are not limited to, the endorsement of enhanced nutrient management practices, improving the manure management system, precision feeding, and minimizing farm machinery use. New sources of energy could also replace fossil fuel dependence.
A few keys to reduce nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide are conserving electricity at the industrial, commercial, and residential levels, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using agricultural best management practices, and state and national efforts to increase the use of renewable energy sources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
