Consequences of Recycling

When you walk by that green recycling can and toss your paper, plastic, can etc. in to it, what are you thinking? Do you even know what you are doing and why? I know, I know, "I am recycling so I can help do my part in saving the environment." I do not believe that many of us have actually thought about what happens to our recyclables and what process goes in to them being recycled. Are we really saving the planet or could we actually be hurting it still?

Yes, recycling is good for the earth and is not all 100% bad, however we do not realize quite how bad it is. The main ways in which recycling hurts the environment are…

• Contamination gets around
• Air pollution
• Paper sludge
• Oil refining contamination
• It encourages consumption and being wasteful in other ways

When you recycle things that may have toxins or impurities in it and it is made in to something else, the toxins and impurities are usually just transferred over in to the new product. These new products could be soda cans or water bottles that we are putting our mouths on and drinking or eating from. Hundreds of buildings in Taiwan have been constructed using recycled steel which has just been found out to be giving people gamma radiation poisoning for years now. The trucks used for transferring your recyclables and the machines used to recycle them are are creating many airborne toxins. In many areas, recycling plants are proven to be the biggest polluters of that area. The paper that you recycle is all mixed up and cleaned off, so all of the runoff which is called "paper sludge" contains all of the ink and chemicals and is then either burned (releasing toxins into the air) or sent to a landfill where it can run off into your groundwater. 

This closely relates to Bell's An Invitation To Environmental Sociology when he talks about virtual environmentalism which is "environmentalism that lies behind and beneath our daily lives" (Bell 283). We are not thinking of what we are really doing when we toss our products in to the recycling can, which is bad in this case. While we think we are saving the earth, we are doing it in such a way that is only increasing our main environmental problems. We need to stand up and find different, more environmentally safe ways in which we can recycle our goods or else we will just keep going around in this continuous circle while the environment, the place we call home, suffers. 

http://listverse.com/2013/01/27/10-ways-recycling-hurts-the-environment/

http://www.wm.com/location/california/ventura-county/thousand-oaks/recycle/facts.jsp

Don't Be Hitler

What is your greatest fear? Spiders? Heights? Horses? Why are you afraid of those things? And what is really the probability of you dying from your fears, or being injured by your fear?

Many times, some of the things we are afraid of aren’t likely to happen to us at all. The probability of falling from a roller coaster and dying: 1 in 300 million. Chances are, you will be fine. But yet people still have that irrational fear of these things. But we aren’t so much afraid of the things that are MORE likely to hurt us.

For example, the probability of dying in a car crash is 1 in 500. You are a lot more likely to die from these dangerous things called automobiles than you are on that rollercoaster. Yet, we still drive cars every day and try to avoid the amusement park. The probability of getting melanoma is 1 in 40 people. Yet, most people are not concerned with the environment and global warming and the risks of the sunlight.

We use something called the rational choice theory to determine the risks of something. The rational choice perspective is that the individual is a purposeful, calculating actor, seeking to maximize his or her interests. This can potentially explain the irrational fears that we have. If I am terrified of roller coasters, my rational choice perspective would to be avoid those like the plague because I do not want to die.  

But some of our choices are made without thinking about the environment and the people in that environment. If a risk, no matter how irrational it is, is disturbing or threatening social order steps will be taken to eliminate that risk at all cost. For example, Hitler thought that the Jews were to blame for everything. Despite his irrational thinking, he did everything he could to try and eliminate the Jewish people due to his irrational fear.

What would happen if someone was terribly afraid of shark attacks and began killing every shark they saw? What would that do to our environment? What would that do to the natural balance of the sea? Many, such as Hitler, take our irrational fears to a whole other level, without really determining the probability of this risk and without taking in consideration what would happen to the rest of the world.

Though everyone tends to have these fears and risks that influence their everyday lives, maybe it is time to stop and think about whether our choices and perspectives are influencing the environment around us. Weigh the risks and probabilities. Keep the environment in mind and stay calm people.

 

A Fisherman's Distress

“The fishermen know that the sea is dangerous and the storm terrible, but they have never found these dangers sufficient reason for remaining."

  -Vincent van Gogh

I like to think of myself as having a strong presence on the water while fishing.  The thrill of having a large fish pulling on the line is one of a kind.  Although not good to eat as they are bottom feeders the Silver Carp puts up quite a fight when being reeled in.  Not only does this carp grow upwards to 40lbs, it can jump up 10 feet out of the water—hence the nickname: The Flying Carp.  Let me tell you a little about this species of fish and why it is causing trouble, not as much for fishermen but for other fish species.

            The Flying Carp is an invasive species, do I need to say more.  Originating from Eastern Asia the species was brought to America in the 1970s in an attempt to control algae growth.  The Silver Carp were seen as a form of technology as they were thought to best control the algae in aquaculture and municipal waste water treatment facilities.  In order to better create an efficient facility a foreign species was brought over in an attempt to change the current situation to one of better quality.  The idea of keeping the species contained was thought to have no complications but something thought to be so simple did not occur.
 

 The 40lb plankton eating fish has become an Invasive Species.  Working its way into many water sources has created an alteration in the ecosystems.  As a fisherman I know the importance of sustaining necessary nutrients for all varieties of species in waters—the diminishing of one species creates a catastrophic effect.  The Flying Carp feed on Plankton required by other species, species originating in North America, creating food competition.  This is an increasing problem for me as my fishing supply may be limited if different species become wiped out from the Flying Carp.  The prevalence of the Silver Carp has impacted the freedom-from of other fish attempting to be sustained in their natural environment because of the competition for limited food.

            How to control the Invasive Species:

1. Release sterile male fish to limit reproduction

2. Release predators into the waterways inhabited by Silver Carp

3. Release disease agents in order to create contact with the species

            In order to best combat the species the population needs to be minimized—to the point of extinction, to create an ecosystem that is self-sustaining.  Many Invasive Species are brought to the United States and become detrimental to the ecosystems.  I would like to be able to fish without the fear of my favorite fish being extinct—let alone being attacked by the Silver Carp as it jumps out of the water.



Sources:
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

 

    

A Message from Mother Earth

I am your mother and I care about how you treat me. Without me, you would not exist. If I'm unhealthy, you are as well. If you take care of me, you will be taking care of yourself. One of the simplest things you can do for me is to reduce your dependence on animals for food. Eating less meat is one of the most significant things you can do to take care of me.

You may be wondering how such an individual choice as what you eat has an effect on me, and ultimately, on you. According to the United Nations, livestock is "one of the ... most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." (...www.fao.org...)

So, I'm asking you to consider the consequences to my health of eating meat on a daily basis. 

First, as you're already aware, I'm warming at an alarming rate. The UN scientists say that eating meat causes 40 percent more global warming than all forms of transportation combined. That means that it is worse than all of the cars, planes, trucks and trains combined. On top of that, raising animals for food is the largest cause of methane emissions, which is really a problem because methane emissions are about 20 times worse than carbon dioxide emissions! If that weren't enough, it also is the leading cause of nitrous oxide emissions, which are about 300 times worse than carbon dioxide emissions. Skipping one meal of chicken per week and substituting it for a vegetarian meal would save about as much carbon dioxide as removing a half-million automobiles from US highways. 

Second, consider how much of my land is used in raising meat. Thirty percent of my land mass is used for raising animals for food. Over 260 millions acres of forest in the US alone has been cleared for raising animals. And the animals are causing soil erosion and the extinction of many plant species because of the land they use. If that weren't bad enough, modern fishing techniques are destroying coral reefs and harvesting many fish to extinction. 

Then there's the water used in raising animals for food. I'll bet you didn't know that you'd save more water by not eating a pound of meat than you would by not taking a shower for six months! Or that it takes almost 2500 gallons of water to raise a pound of beef. That's because it takes a lot of water to grow the crops that animals eat, to give water to those animals to drink, and to clean out the farms, trucks, and slaughterhouses. Compare that to raising a pound of wheat, which only takes about 25 gallons of water. That's 100 times more water used to raise cattle for food! Think of all the water we could be using for other resources! Sure, some would have to go to growing more grains and vegetables but we would have enough left to go to those in need of water! 

Looking at energy use, did you know that making one calorie from plant protein uses 11 times less fossil fuel than making a calorie of animal protein? That's because there are so many steps in raising animals for food: growing food to feed them, transporting the feed, running the factor farms, trucking the animals to the slaughterhouse, operating the slaughterhouse and then shipping the meat to grocery stores. Wow, that's a lot of energy compared to what it takes to just grow the grain or the bean and then harvest it and transport it to a grocery. 

Finally, there's the issue of pollution. As you can imagine, raising the billions of animals used for food in the world generates a whole lot of waste. This waste gets into our waterways and, according to the EPA, it causes more pollution than all other industrial sources put together! You should care about nature and the environment because you are a part of the complex system that makes up the Earth. This is moral holism, according to Bell. You should care about what you do to me, your mother, because what you do to me affects you as well. If you harm the environment, you are harming yourself.

Ok, so you're probably asking, "meat tastes good, so what's in it for me to stop eating it or to eat less of it?" If you are coming from moral separatism, there is still a reason for you to be vegetarian. Moral separatism, according to Bell, is believing that humans are separate from nature. What happens to it doesn't affect us. Well, when you help me by eating less meat, you also happen to help your own health. According to the American Dietetic Association (as well as lots of scientific studies), reducing your meat consumption will lead to a significant lesser risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, stroke and obesity. Your risk of certain cancers can be reduced by 50-80 percent just by being vegetarian! So if you don't want to do it for the environment, do it for yourself.

Works Cited

http://www.alternet.org/story/74605/eating_as_if_the_climate_mattered

http://www.fao.org/agriculture/lead/lead-resources/newsletter2/newsletter-09/en/ 

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/meat-wastes-natural-resources/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YInwDw7DQ6U

Bell, Michael. An Invitation to Environmental Sociology. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge, 1998. Print.

The Risk Is Worth It

Everyone has at least one big fear in their life.. and if not, props to you. Whether it is being afraid of heights, dark rooms, or clowns, the list goes on and on. Life and short and frankly, we do not have all of the time in the world to complete our goals and missions. If someone invited you to go skydiving or you were offered a free trip to some unknown land, would you go? Would you be the person to pass up the once in a lifetime opportunity or would you take it?

Many people would consider themselves people who never take risks, but think about it.. you are

taking risks every single day! It could be anything from riding in a car, eating a hamburger (mad cow disease, or even swimming in shark infested waters! We as humans are never thinking if driving down the road to your friends house could kill you, but matter in fact, it could. 

So why do we do all of these things every day even if we know it could be a risk to us? We can take a look at the rational risk assessment to ask ourselves why we are doing these things. The rational risk assessment is the idea that we should compare our best knowledge about the rates and probabilities of hazards and choose the least dangerous alternative. Risks are "facts" that can be measured, recorded, and evaluated.

This is a great way to gauge what we do and what we do not do as a society, but do we really need this? Why can't we just live our lives whether we are engaging and risky behaviors or not? Sometimes this risk assessment cannot be accurate since everyone does not live just for themselves. We have to think that there are people out there that are selfless and will risk their lives for others. There are people that are willing to give their lives up in order to protect someone else. 

When I think of my biggest fear, it is definitely snakes. Not only snakes in general, but getting bit by a snake. Little did I know, there are only 5-6 fatalities each year from being bit by a snake. Also, did you know that you are 9 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be bit by a snake? All of the sudden my fear of snakes has gone way down!

I think that we as humans should have somewhat of a conscious of how many risks we are taking in our lives, but at the end of the day if you haven't taken any risks you probably are living a very boring life! One choice you could make, could end up changing your life.. so just do it!

Here is an awesome motivational video about taking risks:

http://ufwildlife.ifas.ufl.edu/venomous_snake_faqs.shtml

What is Your Moral Code?

Have you ever thought of yourself as a lover of the environment?
Do you recycle or make sure to turn off the lights when not in a room?
What about animals, are you all about animal rights and preservation?

So yeah, you love your environment and you want to protect it as best as you can, but where do you place yourself?

Do you consider yourself part of the environment?

If you do believe that humans are a part of nature then you believe in moral holism! 

If you believe that humans are separate from the environment then you believe in moral separatism.

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS

Obviously, there are a few implications with each one. For moral holism there is a sense of a reciprocal relationship. We need nature and nature needs us. More so, because we are considered a part of nature then everything we do must be natural, right? If so then sex, eating, sleeping, and reproducing must come to us naturally. Is that really truthful? What about people whom are asexual or homosexual? Does moral holism imply they are unnatural? How about violence, murder, or even rape? Wouldn't they be considered natural as well? At least, people could use moral holism as an excuse to do things.

Moral separatism has another set of implications. Since we are not part of nature than we can not follow nature and nothing we do is natural. Our technology, our advancements, none of it can be considered natural. If we are to consider that we are not part of nature than  we can clearly  never come to understand it..

These are both difficult to fully grasp, and it may not make since. You may find yourself not able to identify with one or the other. Maybe you have your own moral code that is a combination of the two. Maybe the concept of nature is beyond our understanding. After all, it is a social construction, which is the reason that different cultures of different places and times have their own unique relationship with nature.

Forest loss in Paraguay

Satellite images of forest loss here.