What's In Your Bottle?

Firstly, I apologize for not writing anything in the past two weeks. I won't provide a lame excuse, but for those of you who actually look forward to reading this I am sorry for the big gap. Today I hope to more than make up for it.

One of my first post's on this blog looked into the looming water crisis. While it focused on the water shortage in Libya and how mismanagement is exacerbating the problem, the topic was just a sliver in the larger water crisis we face. Here is another example: a few days ago, I was grabbing some lunch and chose to go with water instead of one of my regular (and favorite) sugary drinks. My choices were Fiji and Aquafina brands of bottled water. I was going to treat myself to some of the nice Fiji Water, but as my hand reached for the square bottle I vaguely remembered hearing or reading something about how Fiji bottled water production is harmful to the environment. Since I know that Aquafina is just re-purposed tap water, I decided to go for that instead.

So was that vague memory accurate? Yes, and, as it turns out, in more ways than one. Firstly, the water source - a large, underground aquifer - has been given almost exclusively to the Fiji Water company. This aquifer is being depleted at an accelerated rate due to the popularity of Fiji-brand water amongst celebrities and the elite, making it one of the go-to brands for the rest of us. The implications for the future water supply of this collection of small islands is grim, as sea-level rise threatens other aquifers and sources of freshwater for the citizens of Fiji. The other environmental problems caused by Fiji bottled water come from the poverty and military conflict imposed on the citizens by the military dictatorship governing Fiji. The military benefits from promoting and protecting the Fijian company, while crumbling infrastructure and government indifference force people to live in conditions that are many generations behind our own society (put another way, people cannot live in an environmentally conscious way because they are just struggling to survive). The company does all it can to exploit the resource and maximize profits, but does not go out of its way to give back to the community or the environment.

Fiji Water is just one of many bottled-water companies out there vying for our dollars. Its actions, which are indeed horrendous, are indicative of a much larger problem driven by us - the consumer. All bottled-water companies such as Nestle, Coca-Cola, Evian, etc. have created a product that we don't really need in the developed world, while exploiting a dwindling supply of clean and replenishable water. Despite the great advertising tricks which have made us seek bottled water in record amounts, most of us don't need it. We get clean, safe water from the taps, why do we need to buy the same thing that is in a bottle? Just because it is from a spring or reverse-osmosified doesn't make it any better or more essential for us.

I admit to drinking the occasional bottle of water. It's handy on the go or if you want water but the place you are patronizing doesn't offer tap water. Barring the very occasional use, bottled water consumption shouldn't be so high. Why do we throw away the bottle when we are finished just to buy more, when we could refill the empty bottle with our own clean tap water? Why do we insist that bottled water is cleaner and better for us when that is just not true? Bottled water should be mainly used by those who do not have a direct, constant source of clean water in their midst. Instead it is the other way around. We should vote with our dollars and stop buying bottled-water in such large quantities. If enough of us do this and return to our tap water, not only will the environment be better protected but the poor will not be oppressed by large corporations over such an essential resource.

A Whale of a Problem

This morning in The New York Times is an article detailing Japan's desire to return to whaling activities. The news comes despite the fact that an international court ruled against Japan's whaling practices. Since 1982, commercial whaling has been under a moratorium. Japan, however, has exploited a loophole that allows for scientific research. In addition to Japan, Norway and Iceland continue to whale, registering a point of contention with the moratorium.

The Northern-Pacific island-nation has claimed that it is researching whale population recovery since the moratorium was agreed upon by the international community. That doesn't pass the smell test for most people, because - as any scientist would tell you - you don't kill a portion of a biological population just to see how quickly it will recover. More importantly, you don't do it year after year. Modern science would require that you study a population before an environmental incident which caused serious decline in the species and then analyze the recovery of that species after the specific incident.

Sea Shepherd has famously tracked Japanese whaling vessels and documented their continued commercial-scale culling of specific whale species. I am sure they wanted to focus their efforts on other nations who continue to exploit whales for commercial purposes. However, as the Times points out, if Japan resumes its whaling under a different guise, the Sea Shepherd organization will be devoting a great deal of time and money to combat the renewed effort by Japanese whalers. There are other organizations that police the waters and work to hold offending nations accountable. Obviously, that is not enough to deter Japan. The loophole that has allowed Japan to get away with this for so long needs to be struck out of the moratorium agreement. The other part of the solution is for us to volunteer our time or donate to one of the marine organizations, such as Sea Shepherd, that are committed to protecting whale populations from hunting.

Crossing the Bridge

In my last post, I discussed hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. Many within the oil & gas industry, as well as some scientists, have pointed to natural gas as a "bridge fuel" that can help transition our dependence on dirtier fossil fuels (such as coal and oil) to clean, renewable energy (solar, wind, etc.). This is because natural gas burns in a way that puts less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than oil and coal do.

Taken at face value, that statement makes natural gas a shoe-in for a cleaner energy future.
As is usually the case, the issue is far more complex than that. Natural gas has a high level of methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Bringing natural gas to the surface for energy consumption opens up the chances for methane to leak into the atmosphere and become a major contributor to global warming. While burning natural gas may prevent methane from getting into the atmosphere, it still emits the by-product of carbon dioxide. There may be less carbon dioxide percentage-wise than burning an equivalent amount of coal, but it is still putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Recent studies have highlighted the risks of methane leaks from the natural gas infrastructure in America. Additionally, researchers have found that the process of obtaining natural gas, in particular "shale gas", is very energy intensive, and may actually decrease the overall "clean" benefits of natural gas. For example, hydraulic fracturing uses millions of gallons of water per instance of fracking, and a single well may be fracked many times. Water must be obtained and is usually trucked in from an off-site source. To construct a well, obtain water & chemicals for fracking, pump the water, and then remove the wastewater that is produced requires over 13,000 round-trip tractor-trailer truck visits. Most of these trucks use conventional diesel fuel, which is a dirty fuel, so local emissions of greenhouse gases rise when shale gas productions begins.

I want to re-iterate that I am not completely opposed to hydraulic fracturing, nor am I opposed to the use of natural gas. It's use is far better than that of regular gasoline or diesel fuel in vehicles and much cleaner than coal-fired power plants. My goal in writing this post is to make the general public aware of the faults that shale gas has. It is not completely clean and it is certainly not renewable. While it's likely that natural gas will be a major bridge fuel for the foreseeable future, I don't think we need to fall for industry claims that natural gas is our savior in the energy realm. We as consumers should be pressing for more viable options and for the continued expansion of the truly clean renewables, not settling for the least bad fossil fuel.

Water Supply and Hydraulic Fracturing

Hydraulic fracturing is still quite a hot topic. While a great deal of public and grassroots furor has been made over its use in the United States, the practice still continues and is even spreading overseas. Many nations in Europe would like to give it a try, especially the UK. For me, the issue is not so much the fact that fracking is occurring. It is that there is a great lack of regulations over the industry here in the United States and a general lack of scientific understanding about its effects on the environment.

Natural gas is highly sought after, and it has the potential of being a "bridge fuel" away from dirtier fossil fuels and toward clean, renewable sources of energy. That particular statement is also a hot topic right now and I will explore this further in a different blog. Currently the demand both by consumers and producers means that hydrofracking will be with us for a while. Where it is done and how it is done is what we need to focus on.

A little more than a year ago, I researched the scientific evidence about water usage and hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale (a large geologic formation under the northeastern states). This is one of the major issues I am concerned with. Scientific evidence was lacking regarding the actual process of hydrofracking on water supply, but the evidence is plentiful about the effects on the water supply and that regulations are not effective enough at containing subsurface or surface pollution of drinking water supplies. I produced an informational poster for a course during my Master's program that highlighted the issue surrounding water and hydraulic fracturing. The poster details the problems of water consumption during hydraulic fracturing, loss of water from the total water supply, containment problems of polluted water, etc. The challenges are real, but something can be done about it. I present the poster here (you may have to zoom in to read the small print) so that readers can become informed about the real, scientific issues regarding this process.

It's complicated

Throughout my educational and work experience, invasive species were one thing: very bad! Whether an insect, plant, disease, or other creature they would find their way into a new area and wreak havoc with the natives. They could out-compete with native species on every level imaginable and alter long-established ecosystems. They threatened economically important crops and socially-desirable plants and charismatic animals. We as humans had to do everything in our power to stop invasive species.

At face value, the issue is clear. Invasive species are bad for native populations and the ecosystems they thrive in. Further research reveals that this matter is a lot more complicated than it seems. Firstly, invasive species have spread into a new territory because a pathway has been opened up which was not previously available to the species. More often than not, this pathway has become available because of humans. Usually the species has arrived because of international trade activities or the collection of plants for horticultural purposes. An indirect link to humans comes in the form of climate change. Warmer temperatures and longer warm seasons have opened up regions that were previously limited to certain species. One example is the Hemlock Wooly Adelgid. This very small insect has moved north as warmer winter temperatures have become more prevalent, decimating the once expansive hemlock populations in the Northeast U.S. It is hard to stop something that has no predator in its new habitat and is free to go where it pleases in a warmer climate.

During my research at the University of Liverpool, I actually discovered that existing environmental management plans that are aggressive toward an invasive species that has already become established may do more harm than good. A few case studies have found that endangered, native species that don't compete for the same resources will actually adapt and become dependent on the invasive species. When trying to remove the invasive species, land managers and scientists have found that native species are very slow to return and may not re-establish themselves at all if prior land management policies did not favor the conditions for the native species to thrive in. While invasive species may drive out their native counterparts, creating a monoculture of single dominant species, other native species may adapt to that.

As with most things biological (and dealing with the environment), the issue of invasive species is quite complex. It is obvious that the problem is only becoming worse, and it threatens whole ecosystems as well as individual species and even human activities. However, a one-size-fits-all plan is not the solution. If an invasive has settled in, policymakers may do well to create a policy of accommodation rather than eradication. Also, we cannot stop international trade just because we are afraid of the next invasive species to cross our borders. For one thing, we don't know what an invasive species is until it actually starts becoming invasive in our neck of the woods. Government agencies that regulate and monitor known invasive species are learning that this issue is quite complicated and are trying to alter their policies accordingly. The rest of us - lovers of native species, horticulturists, traders, advocates of the environment, basically everyone - needs to encourage this kind of approach. Since humans have caused a lot of the stress our natural world currently faces, we must use educated and flexible approaches if we are going to continue to "manage" the environment.

Floating on a Sea of Garbage

Following yesterday's post about under-reported environmental incidents, I decided that there was another story that has really been missed. It is a pollution event on a massive scale, and one we are likely all complicit in. The tragic events of Malaysian Airlines flight 370 allowed a very small pin prick of light to be shed on the fact that our seas are full of trash. Several large pieces of floating rubbish were mistaken for the missing aircraft that still has not been found.

News outlets understandably kept to the story of MH370. Despite some networks insistence on 24-hour speculation on nothing but the fate of the flight (I'm looking at you CNN), there was an opportunity to highlight the fact that a great deal of our daily garbage is making it into the world's oceans. Instead of ceaselessly covering the fact that nobody knew where the missing airliner was, news outlets had a chance to break up the monotony and teach their viewers about what happens when their (or a business') trash doesn't end up in the recycling plant or the landfill.

A few news outlets did decide to shed further light on the growing pollution problem with our oceans. The sad reality is that our oceans are heaving with garbage, rubbish, trash or whatever else you like to call it. A great deal of that waste is in the form of plastic. Because plastic typically floats and isn't bio-degradable, that is the face of ocean pollution. Recently, I saw a great Norwegian film about two young men living for several months above the Arctic Circle. They wanted to spend the time surfing on the waves as storms blew in. What they discovered is the amount of trash that daily washed up on the beach, and they made it their task to clean up the beach and keep it clean. All sorts of garbage washed up, and eventually they removed several tons of the stuff.

Garbage (plastic or otherwise) makes it into the ocean for a variety of reasons. A bottle left on the street gets washed into a storm drain on a coastal town and then follows the pipe out to sea. A trash barge carrying waste to a landfill loses some of its load as it moves through the water. It's little things, but they have massed into a very large problem and environmental issue. The harm our rubbish is doing to marine life and bird populations has been well-documented.

The good news is this is something we as consumers can limit now. Make sure you recycle what you can, and make sure it is contained properly. If you have a bottled drink you want to throw away while you are out and about, make sure it gets into the trash receptacle (look for the recycling containers in some cities). Don't just toss it and assume it made it in there. Better yet, take your bottle home with you and recycle it properly. If you see a plastic bottle or bag in the street, pick it up and throw it away in the proper manner. We have to take action if we want to unburden the seas from the islands of trash we have permitted to accumulate there. As with most environmental issues, the buck stops with the consumer. If we improve our habits, we make sure that ourselves and future generations get to enjoy all of the natural world.

Thanks Rolling Stone!

I have never, ever picked up a copy of Rolling Stone magazine or visited its website. After today, I just might have to keep my eye on this world famous media outlet. My friend and former colleague sent me a link to what his longtime girlfriend just had published to the online version of Rolling Stone. It covers some of the environmental disasters that have not enjoyed a great deal of coverage from the rest of mainstream media.

Now, if you are plugged into the environmental world, you may have heard these stories. I am familiar with 4 of the 5 stories the online article highlights. However, with perhaps the exception of the West, Texas chemical plant explosion, I think much of America has not really heard of these incidents. Worse yet, they don't get the opportunity to understand the significance of these pollution events because the 24 hour news cycle deems the story to be less important than it really is. The harsh reality is there are many environmental incidents that either don't get past the local news, or get scant coverage on the national/international news shows.

For example, how many Americans know of the oil spill that occurred in a Salt Lake City creek the same year that the infamous Deepwater Horizon oil spill became America's worst oil spill ever? Or how about this Bohai Sea oil spill that occurred off the coast of China the following year?  The fact of the matter is a lot of these incidents barely get mentioned in most news outlets. If you do hear about it, the research is usually left up to the individual to carry out if there is a desire to learn about the scope and scale of the incident.

Those of us who care about the environment must push back at the news outlets and demand they treat these incidents as real - and significant - stories. At a time when humans have never impacted the environment in a bigger way, we must hold the corporations that exploit the environment accountable. This is done by keeping the average citizen aware of what is going on and educating them on why a particular incident is such a bad thing. Unless we demand it, the corporations win the PR game, and we sadly find these news vignettes in Rolling Stone.