Innovation that Excites? Or Overpopulation?

Samarth Kamat

The human population has experienced exponential growth ever since the Neolithic Revolution. However, there must be some limit to human population size. A clear indication of human population reaching an upper limit is seen in how we are straining the environment. But a single question remains: when will humans reach carrying capacity? 

Historically, humans have always feared the idea of reaching a carrying capacity. Scholar Thomas Malthus incorrectly predicted in “An Essay on the Principle of Population” that resources grow linearly while human population grows exponentially, warning that uncontrolled growth would deplete resources and bring about widespread famine. He proposed solutions such as delaying marriage in order to decrease birth rate and, unpopularly, extreme measures to slash the population such as to “court the return of the plague.”

Evidently, Malthus’s theories were proven incorrect by the unprecedented growth brought by the Industrial Revolution and the advancements genetic engineering. The Industrial Revolution brought about an exponential increase in resources and showed a food supply growing with the human population. Malthus’s fears, however, were not resolved. In the mid-1900s a resurgence of Neo-Malthusians. This time, innovation in the form of genetic engineering resolved the fears surrounding overpopulation. The Green Revolution, led by Norman Borlaug, brought higher yielding crops and more nutritious plants to regions especially facing famine and poverty. These crops were drought resistant and minimized input while maximizing output. This led to a rising population, most notably in the developing world.

Today, the question is still debating regarding whether humans have surpassed carrying capacity. The argument can be made that by the definition of carrying capacity, putting a strain on one’s environment and resources, the human species is reaching its carrying capacity, or has already passed it. Our new and improved agricultural output has come at a severe cost to our environment. Places all around the world have resorted to unsustainable farming techniques like monocropping and tilling. “In the US alone, soil on cropland is eroding 10 times faster than it can be replenished. If we continue to degrade the soil at the rate we are now, the world could run out of topsoil in about 60 years” (UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization). The rate is even worse in developing countries. These practices are allowing humans to produce food in unnatural quantities, at the expense of sustainability. This begs the question of whether human ingenuity actually does raise the carrying capacity, or are we simply delaying the inevitable fate of the human race? 

Sources:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-overpopulation-still-an-issue-of-concern/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/07/30/how-big-of-a-problem-is-overpopulation/#1d89c131216a

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/8/20/20802413/overpopulation-demographic-transition-population-explained

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/30/topsoil-farming-agriculture-food-toxic-america

Questions:

Is there a way to support human life at such a large scale without ultimately harming the environment?

Have humans already reached carrying capacity, or are we able continue to support ourselves as our population grows?

What role does overpopulation have in the sixth mass extinction?

The Dangers of The Cove in Taiji, Japan

The Dolphin Killing Cove

By: Maddie Hand

From September 1st up until March 1st, fishermen and hunters drive herds of dolphins into the cove every year. There are occasions where these animals are left here for days, deprived of any sort of food, and confined to small space, waiting to either be killed or to be chosen to go to aquariums; these attacks on dolphins are so brutal that the hunters will not stop until the water has run completely red. Every year this happens, and every year nearly 20,000+ dolphins, whales, and small porpoises are tragically and cruelly slaughtered, in Japan alone.

Mercury is commonly found in a variety of seafood. In some cases, it can permanently damage vision, hearing, and in terms of stretched out effects, the consumption of mercury can lead to serious mental disabilities such as dementia.

Because of how it attacks the human body, which is specifically through the brain and nervous systems, it is considered to be the second most lethal substance in terms of toxicity known to man. Dolphins are roughly five times more likely to have high traces of mercury in their system than any other sea animal, yet their meat, along with the meat of whales, is sold in the thousands every year, even being found in everyday lunches at local schools. 

Perhaps the most cruel part of the entire process comes from how these animals are killed. For years, their throats would be cut, however, in an effort to make things more humane and limit the brutality, is done by removing their spinal cord. While drive hunters have argued this to be the least cruel option possible, their case has been shut down after footage surfaced of dolphins struggling for nearly five whole minutes as opposed to the couple of seconds that were initially claimed.

Though the killing is something that needs to be brought to light, it’s also important to note that there is animal cruelty in question when it comes to dolphins being sold into captivity for entertainment purposes. This industry is absolutely massive; a full grown, and completely trained dolphin can be sold for roughly $150,000. The psychological damage done is completely irreversible. Dolphins are highly sociable animals. With hunting of any sort, not every single animal is going to get captured and/or killed. When it comes to dolphins, after experiencing the drive hunting, they can and will go into a state of depression and no longer want to associate in groups. It also causes an extreme amount of stress once separated from their families, not to mention when seeing members of that family being killed.

Taiji, Japan is one of the many places around the globe that this is happening. In retrospect, approximately 100,000 dolphins are killed every year, and this number excludes those who are left in a state of distress, or those who are sold and transported to aquariums and sea parks. It’s a matter that isn’t talked about due to the cultural ties associated with it, however, the practice with its sadistic nature calls for it to be brought to an end. If the savage acts towards these animals were not reason enough, the obvious health and safety precautions that need to be taken for sake of the hunters behind it.

Work Cited

Macdonald, Jessica. “Taiji Dolphin Slaughter: Culture or Cruelty?” Scuba Diver Life, 8 Jan. 2016, scubadiverlife.com/taiji-dolphin-slaughter-culture-or-cruelty/.

“Stop Dolphin Hunts.” Whale & Dolphin Conservation USA, 2019, us.whales.org/our-4-goals/stop-whaling/stop-dolphin-hunts/.

O'Barry, Ric. “DANGER: Dolphin Meat Is Poisoned by Mercury.” Dolphin Project, 24 Feb. 2020, www.dolphinproject.com/campaigns/save-japan-dolphins/danger-dolphin-meat-is-poisoned-by-mercury/.

           Fast Fashion: A Risk Worth Taking?

                                                            By Shreyaa Gopinath

As fashion trends take the world by storm, the clothing industry expands. Avid fashion fans strive to keep up with the rapidly changing current craze. While constantly buying new clothes may seem like an exciting activity only limited by money, we fail to take into consideration who makes these clothes and how it affects the environment. A majority of trend followers and the general public buy their clothes from stores known to participate in “fast fashion”. Fast fashion refers to retailers that sell mass produced clothes such as Forever 21 and Zara. While mass production is convenient for the retailer, it is extremely detrimental to the environment. 

In late 2019, the clothing industry accounted for 8.1 percent of global greenhouse emissions. While this may not seem like a large amount, the fashion industry grows 5 percent on average annually. Using this statistic, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change predicts that by 2030, emissions will increase by 60 percent. Even simple acts such as washing these clothes can generate more than 1900 micro plastic fibers per cycle. Additionally, polyester, a common material used for clothes, can contribute to increasing plastic in our oceans through shedding microfibers. These microfibers go undetected and are not biodegradable, proving to be dangerous to marine life. 

Because these companies sell clothes for less money than higher end stores do, people typically buy new products rather than repairing the ones they have. This promotes a “throw-away society” in an effort to maintain a profit. However, these thrown away clothes also pose a threat to the environment as an unfortunate majority of clothing ends up in landfills. While this may not seem threatening, the materials used for these products are typically not as biodegradable as other fabrics.

Although the issue of fast fashion impacting the environment appears intimidating, we can work towards tackling this problem in several ways. For example, donating clothes rather than throwing them away will aid in avoiding the increase in landfill pollution. Additionally, repurposing items will allow a longer use time. Unfortunately, cheap and readily accessible clothing may be the most convenient option for a large majority of the population. What other available options are there for ethically made clothing? How else can you help reduce clothing pollution? 

Sources:

https://sustainability.uq.edu.au/projects/recycling-and-waste-minimisation/fast-fashion-quick-cause-environmental-havoc

https://www.vox.com/2019/9/12/20860620/fast-fashion-zara-hm-forever-21-boohoo-environment-cost

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/environment-costs-fast-fashion-pollution-waste-sustainability-a8139386.html

https://www.wpr.org/expert-throwing-away-clothing-does-serious-damage-environment 

Invisible oil from the not so invisible BP oil spill

Sami Frascoli

On April 20th, 2010, a massive explosion from an oil rig, known as the Deep Water Horizon, located in the Gulf of Mexico became America’s worst oil rig disaster in history. After the rig exploded, an enormous amount of oil was released into the ocean and continued for about 87 days, in which around 3.19 million barrels of oil, or 130 million gallons, were released into the sea. The oil that was spilled either floated to the top to create a thick slick on the ocean’s surface or sank to the bottom to cover up the seafloor. Either way the oil went, it spelled disaster for the ecosystems that it affected, ranging from the death of many deep sea corals to the organisms on the surface being drenched in this oil. Unfortunately, oil spills are not very easy to clean due to the spread of oil being tricky to contain in a refined area and the difficulty in trying to clean up the organisms and environment that were affected by the oil. If you had the power to decide how to clean up the spill, what would you do in a situation like this?

To attempt to clean up the oil that was spilled, various methods were used in order to help the situation at hand. Since oil is known to be a hydrophobic material, which means something that doesn’t mix well with water, clean up workers would use chemicals called dispersants so that it could break down the oil into particles that would be able to mix with water to prevent more oil slicks from forming. However, by letting the oil particles mix in with the water, it can sometimes lead to a more toxic environment than before. Another way that clean up workers try to clean up the spread of oil is by placing physical barriers to stop the spread of oil slicks. First, they use floating booms to trap the oil, which is then retrieved from a boat. After that is done, the rest of the oil that wasn’t cleaned up manually would be absorbed by sorbents like sponges. However, processes like these take time and money, leading to costs of more than $40 billion in clean up and recovery of the ecosystems. Besides these two methods of clean up, are there other ways you can think of that would potentially be more efficient in both time and money?

So, after the large number of resources that were used in order to clean up and the nearly 10 years that have separated the spill from then to today, you’d think that everything would be all well and resolved. Unfortunately, thanks to a new study created by the University of Miami, it seems as though we were not as successful in what we would have hoped to have been. The findings of this study, which were made within early-mid February, mention that there is a substantial amount of oil that was invisible up until now. The reason being is that the satellites that were used to track the spread of oil were not able to detect oil under a specific threshold, meaning, there was more oil that was spilled than it was initially thought. From these new findings, it is thought that the oil also spread to the coasts of Texas, East and West Florida, and the Florida Keys, which leaves concerns about the potential dangers of future oil spills.

So what does this all mean in the end? Well for starters, it means that any future spills that happen are going to be looked at even further. This could mean anything from recalculating where the oil will flow to the amount of devastation it could leave on an environment. This could also mean that any oil spills that have happened in the past need to be reexamined for the fear that they might cause potential problems in the future such as a massive loss in wildlife that was not taken into consideration up until now. Not all is doom and gloom, however, because even though this means that past oil spills may be still in effect today, this new information can help us create new solutions in order to better help the environment in case another spill were to happen. After reading this blog, how could this information be used to affect your life directly or indirectly?

Citations
1. Pallardy, Richard. “Environmental Costs.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 29 May 2019, www.britannica.com/event/Deepwater-Horizon-oil-spill/Environmental-costs.

2. University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science. "New study shows Deepwater Horizon oil spill larger than previously thought: Toxic and invisible oil spread well beyond known satellite footprint, fishing closures." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 12 February 2020. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/

3. Ocean Portal Team. “Gulf Oil Spill.” Smithsonian Ocean, 17 Dec. 2019, ocean.si.edu/conservation/pollution/gulf-oil-spill.

Deceit in the Meat Industry

Jesus Rene Diaz

For the past several decades, water contamination in Ellendale, Delaware has affected the lives of many of its residents. A significant number of residents do not draw water from the city’s water supply; instead, they rely on private wells, unregulated by state or federal law,  that draw water from local water sources. Nitrate testing from these water sources has revealed that they pose a significant health risk to infants and pregnant women: nitrate levels are almost double the Environmental Protection Agency’s limit of 10 milligrams per liter. High nitrate levels are known to cause blue baby syndrome, a condition caused by decreased hemoglobin in the blood, but it has also been linked to Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and cancer. These health risks along with a potent rotten egg-like smell given off by the nitrogen saturated water have driven the low-income families to rely on bottled water for cooking and brushing their teeth. Most are unable to afford expensive reverse-osmosis water filtration systems, and only one percent of private well owners use water test kits to check nitrate levels.

Wastewater from a slaughterhouse being sprayed onto farmlands near people's homes

Behind these historically unparalleled nitrate levels are nearby poultry farms that have been found guilty of dumping billions of gallons of extremely contaminated wastewater. This water, consisting mainly of chicken fecal matter, flesh, blood, and parts of carcasses, has been dumped for several years into crop fields surrounding the plants. These plants are no exception however, as similar unfiltered pollution has been found in multiple plants across the nation. Enacted in 1972, the Clean Water Act established the basic structure for regulating the magnitude of pollution discharging into U.S. waters. The FB Purnell Sausage Co. plant in Simpsonville, Kentucky was found guilty of over a hundred violations of the Clean Water Act as they dumped ammonia, bacteria, and chicken corpses into local waterways over the span of almost three years. Similarly, the Keystone Protein Co. plant in Fredericksburg, Pennsylvania was criticized for having 62 violations of the Clean Water Act for dumping unfiltered phosphorus and nitrogen into local rivers. As we have learned, the saturation of ecosystems with large amounts of nitrogen can greatly alter the distribution of species in ecosystems that have adapted to a specific level of nitrogen. In addition, phosphorus-saturated waterways are subject to devastating algal blooms that create hypoxic conditions and kill substantial populations of aquatic organisms that cannot survive in the oxygen-poor conditions.

Thus, despite the presence of legislative public-safety regulations, many plants in the U.S. make substantial violations over extended periods of time. It thus becomes clear that the problem is not the lack of legislation, but rather the lack of government enforcement of legislation. Of the aforementioned plants,  FB Purnell Sausage Co. was only fined $19,500 for it’s three-year endeavor, while Keystone Protein Co. was fined an even more meager $1,030, despite having discharged the highly-polluted water for over a thousand days. With such trivial and belated government intervention, slaughterhouses have no incentive to comply with pollution regulations. Of course, there are a few occasional plants that are fined a substantial enough amount of money to stimulate change. In 2018, Tyson paid a $2 million criminal fine for having dumped chemical waste into a local waterway, but it was only as a result of the widely-publicized death of thousands of fish in Springfield, Missouri. Most plants do not create an immediate catastrophe, but instead slowly degrade the local ecosystem in such a way that most are either fined too little or are not fined at all.

A feed mill spill from Tyson's poultry industry created a highly acidic environment in Clear Creek, Missouri
and killed over 100,000 fish 

To address this problem, it is clear that political action must be sparked by bringing public attention to the modern meat industry. In fact, this strategy has proven effective in regulating the meat industry in the U.S. before. Sinclair’s The Jungle brought public attention to the rotten meat and filthy working conditions that were behind the meat-packing industry in the beginning of the twentieth century. This in turn contributed to the enactment of the Pure Food and Drug Act and the creation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to oversee compliance with the new law. If Congress was able to enact reforms as substantial as these in the twentieth century, can it not bring about similar change in the twenty-first century? Do you think this is the best strategy to ensure compliance with pollution legislation, or are there other, more effective, strategies?

Citations:

• https://environmentalintegrity.org/reports/water-pollution-from-slaughterhouses/
• https://whyy.org/articles/disconnected-thousands-in-delaware-lack-access-to-safer-public-water/
• https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/tyson-poultry-fined-2-million-violating-clean-water-act

Climate Change Leads to Declining Bumblebee Populations

Nimeshika Devarakonda 

Bumblebees are important pollinators. Their large size helps them shake flowers and plants at a faster rate, 
allowing them to get more pollen. In plants that keep their pollen hidden, such as tomatoes and blueberries, 
bumblebees have a better chance of shaking this pollen out than other types of pollinators, like honeybees. 
However, climate change is causing a decline in bumblebees, which could lead to many negative effects. 

Climate change causes places to experience dramatic temperature spikes and heatwaves. Much of these swings
in temperature are occurring in southern regions in places like Spain and Mexico. These swings cause 
bumblebees to move north into North America and Northern Europe, leading to a large decline of bumblebees 
in southern regions. This decline is especially extreme in Mexico, which used to have a large number of these 
pollinators. 

Bridle and Rensburg, scientists studying the decline of bumblebees, state that this loss in bumblebees
“adds to a growing body of evidence for alarming, widespread losses of biodiversity and for rates of global change
that now exceed the critical limits of ecosystem resilience” (Briggs). While much of the bumblebee population is declining
in southern regions, there is also a general decline even in northern regions. There has been a 46% decline 
in North America and a 17% decline in Europe of this population. 

As seen, this decline of bumblebees due to climate change has many adverse effects on different types of 
species and the overall biodiversity of the environment. While climate change is a factor in their decline, 
habitat loss and pesticide use also contribute to the loss of bumblebee populations. It is clear that humans 
need to help this species. So, what are some things that humans can do to help the bumblebee population? 
How can humans stop global warming? 

Sources:

Briggs, Helen. “Climate Change: Loss of Bumblebees Driven by 'Climate Chaos'.” BBC News, BBC, 7 Feb. 2020, www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51375600. 

Pierre-louis, Kendra, and Nadja Popovich. “Climate Change: It's a Buzzkill for Bumblebees, Study Finds.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Feb. 2020, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/06/climate/bumblebees-extreme-heat-weather.html. 

Sommer, Lauren. “Bumblebees Are Disappearing Because Of Extreme Heat.” NPR, NPR, 6 Feb. 2020, www.npr.org/2020/02/06/803130948/bumblebees-are-disappearing-because-of-extreme-heat. 

     Shobitha Dendukuri
 
Will Ocean Acidification Wipe Out the Human Race?

      A recent study showed that the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs not only created harmful gases ruining oxygen levels, but it has been revealed that is created the first instance of ocean acidification.  This unusual state of the ocean added to the chaos occurring and caused many problems which could have possibly eliminated the dinosaurs. If such huge a powerful creatures could be eliminated by ocean acidification, what is to say that the same will not happen to us?
 
   Ocean acidification is a growing problem in today’s world. As the population increases more people are breathing in oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide, this is a direct cause of the rise carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and causing the oceans to acidify. Also in the past hundred years or so humans have started using automobiles. The consequences for this is that in order to keep automobiles running we must burn fossil fuels, and burning fossil fuels releases even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Basically all the release of carbon dioxide increases the pH of the oceans causing ocean acidification.
 
  Not only does it effect humans but the acidification of oceans effects many biomes and the organisms living in these biomes. For instance the coral reef biome. Coral reef are subject to ocean upwelling because the different levels of carbon in the oceans effects the density of the water. This results in the water currents mixing different temperatures of water together. Such mixing is harmful to some species of shellfish living in the coral reefs because they are used to a single temperature. So when these shellfish die the coral reef biomes loses biodiversity and organisms depending on the shellfish loose their resources. Additionally, this crisis effect humans too because we loses million of dollars in the shellfish industry.

      Ocean acidification is a huge problem and must be addressed. Although the it may not wipe out the world’s population like it did to the dinosaurs immediately it might occur one day. After merely hundred years of burning fossil fuels so many issues have risen. If we continue at this rate we might not be able to live to burn more fossil fuels. What ways do you think humanity as a whole can stop ocean acidification? Who has the power to cause a change in our society? What do you think your community or family can do to help with this problem?

Sources: https://www.livescience.com/ocean-acidification.html
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/45/22500

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/science/chicxulub-asteroid-ocean-acid.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article



   

What is the Role of Politics in Confronting the Climate Crisis?

-->

Sloan Davis

We find ourselves in the midst of an election year while studying environmental science. As time goes on, these two topics find themselves evermore connected and dependent on one another. I am passionate about politics because of my love of the planet and the natural world. To understand the current state of environmental science is also to have knowledge about the political climate we live in and how a desire to act against the climate crisis can become a reality for the United States and the world. That deeper understanding starts with comprehension of the factual issue facing the biosphere today, and it works its way up the political web and into what actions can drive policy and what policy can drive progress.

Climate justice is not only a scientific issue, but it is also an economic issue, a race issue, a political issue, and a moral issue. The water in Flint Michigan is poisoned because of poor infrastructure. Billions of animals are displaced because of wildfires around the world.  When sea levels rise and the weather becomes extreme, the most vulnerable among us will be the most affected. At this pivotal point in human and geological history, it is imperative that the appropriate action is taken to usurp disaster. In goal 13 of the sustainable development goals, the UN claims that between 1880 and 2012, the global average temperature rose 0.85°C, and in all likelihood that number will reach 1.5°C which will be a tipping point for many of the world’s ecosystems. Likewise, sea-levels have already risen 19 centimeters since 1901 and further, accelerated rise is predicted (UN Environment). On this front, private industry has failed the world. Back in the summer of 1977, Exxon first learned of the dangers of climate change; that is 11 years before NASA presented similar findings to Congress (Hall). Democracy is the only thing protecting the planet’s biomes from vast alterations.

Change will not start from the top down, it must come from the bottom up and challenge the status quo of institutions that are indifferent to the climate crisis. Activism is this change in its infancy; it is a rudimentary stepping stone that informs the masses and generates a conversation. Every great progression in society since the dawn of civilization has started from the roots and worked its way into the political system. In the same way, the findings from environmental science in the past 40 years have to be translated to the public for the arduous process of political change to take place. Unlike the current climate, politics is not fast-changing nor unpredictable. At the forefront of climate activism is are the younger generations who understand that the impacts of this environmental crisis will ripple into their adult lives and the lives of their children. One such person, Greta Thunberg, has made waves in the political discourse of the globe by protesting political inaction on climate change and bringing 13 million strikers with her in 228 countries across the globe through her organization Fridays For Future (Fridays For Future). This movement of all peoples from across the globe pivoted the international discourse towards climate action.

    Picking up on the groundwork that activists lay, democracy must choose the sweep ambitious candidates with climate action on their agendas into office. Activism is great but if people vote for the same old corrupt and intellectually bankrupt politicians, coastal cities will be consumed by the oceans and the global ecosystem will be thrown into the sixth mass extinction. Already 200 species go extinct every day (Vidal). To combat this, ambitious legislation must be put forward to meet the demands of science as outlined by the UN, IPCC and other international, non-partisan organizations. One such plan, the Green New Deal co-authored by representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, aims to meet all of these needs in a ten-year time frame. The Green New Deal includes plans to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2030, reduce U.S. reliance on air travel, and invest in sustainable agriculture. Soon after its introduction, several U.S. presidential candidates adopted versions of the plan and some even present climate action as one of their top priorities (Roberts). Proposed policies also include plans to clean up the polluted oceans while restoring them to a natural balance of pH. Now, legislation waits in the halls of Congress and the legislative chambers of countries worldwide that aims to tackle the climate crisis head-on.

    Because of the failures of private industry to act on the issue of climate change, political action, starting from the bottom, is needed to quell the existential threat that is climate change on the natural world. Activists must protest, citizens must vote, and politicians need to bring fresh ideas to the table if humanity is to survive this challenge. The environment can, and will, survive without us, but we cannot survive without it. To protect the most vulnerable, the poor, the disenfranchised by society, environmental science and politics have to be one and the same. People cannot sit idly while the Earth’s oceans acidify, the great rain forests are burned, and species pass to extinction.

Questions:

What should governments do to combat climate change? 

In what ways should private corporations evolve to be environmentally friendly?

Should the United States engage the governments of other countries to help tackle this issue? If so how?

Do you feel the general public has an adequate enough knowledge of climate change to be able to make an educated voting decision?

Works Cited

Hall, Shannon. “Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 26 Oct. 2015, www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/.

Roberts, David. “The Green New Deal, Explained.” Vox, Vox, 30 Mar. 2019, www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/12/21/18144138/green-new-deal-alexandria-ocasio-cortez.

“Statistics / Graph.” FridaysForFuture, www.fridaysforfuture.org/statistics/graph.

Un. “GOAL 13: Climate Action.” UNEP - UN Environment Programme, www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/sustainable-development-goals/why-do-sustainable-development-goals-matter/goal-13.

Vidal, John. “Scientist: Mass Extinction Happening Unlike Anything The World Has Seen Since Dinosaurs Disappeared.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 25 May 2011, www.huffpost.com/entry/un-environment-programme-_n_684562.

-->

Small Doesn't Mean Not As Harmful

Akhila Damarla

       Especially with social media, many have worked together to reduce plastic waste along with its harmful effects. However, most do not know the consequences of microplastics. Microplastics refer to pieces of plastic that are less than five millimeters long. Microplastics for sure harm wildlife, but scientists still are in the midst of exploring and researching their exact effects.

       So how do microplastic pieces make it into the ocean and harm animals? One answer is precipitation: they are being transported through the air. As a result, microplastics can harm wildlife from all over the world. In addition, they are able to easily slip past infiltration systems that feed filtrated water into natural sources of water. Not only are microplastics harmful for aquatic animals but potentially for humans as well. We can ingest microplastics through our drinking water.

       As stated previously, various species are in danger due to microplastic pollution, especially aquatic life. Fish that digest microplastics can have their gills blocked or get cut on their insides. Likewise, terrestrial animals could be in danger as well. For example, microplastics could cause earthworms to have a reduction in their ability to grow and eat.

       This brings us to the topic of bioaccumulation. Bioaccumulation, according to Merriam-Webster, is "the accumulation over time of a substance and especially a contamination in a living organism." If fish become contaminated with microplastic pollution, then--according to the food chain--we have a chance of indirectly digesting this microplastic pollution as well.
       Thankfully, people are starting to take measures to negate any possible harmful effects of microplastic pollution. In 2015, America passed the Microbead-Free Waters Act, which prohibits companies from implementing microbeads in "rinse-off" cosmetics. 
       Aside from the government spreading awareness, what other ways can we, as a community, reduce microplastic pollution? And, how can you, personally, reduce microplastic pollution?

Sources:
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-microplastic-pollution-scientists-wildlife.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2231821-microplastic-pollution-reduces-animal-life-at-the-bottom-of-lakes/
https://psmag.com/environment/there-is-no-escaping-microplastic-pollution
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations/microbead-free-waters-act-faqs
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/microplastics.html