Stratospheric Ozone Depletion and Climate Change

     There's a Hole in Our Sky!

by: Aniket Pal

          Global warming and the destruction of the ozone layer appear as problems larger both chronologically and tangibly than human life. This appearance is due to us limiting our term––human life––to one lifetime such as our own. The ozone depletion problem of today is the result of human life starting around the first Industrial Revolution. Industrial processes’ release of chlorofluorocarbons and chlorine atoms caused greenhouse gas chemical reactions, trapping ozone in the troposphere and destroying ozone in the stratosphere. The point is that global warming and ozone distribution problems are in fact very human problems. These problems now require human solutions starting from thoughts to actions.
   
          Pollution, the ozone layer, climate change. The people have heard these terms so often that the terms have lost significance. When is the last time we stopped to think about the nuances before classifying a problem as just another part of global warming or climate change? These are global issues that we manage to subjugate in order to be at peace with ourselves. Notwithstanding, these problems can no longer be ignored. There are nuances for each problem, and those nuances reveal solutions, specifically, in the situation of ozone depletion and global warming. The problem is not just that the Earth is getting hotter; the problem is that we are in a prolonged warming period that has no precedent in our world’s history. Anthropogenic activity, ignorant of its divergence from nature, has exceeded the natural volcanic and solar contributions to global warming (Reisman). Global temperatures should have been on a natural cooling cycle. However, in 1750, the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide emissions burst the natural cycle with the combustion of fossil fuels (“Global Warming” 2014). Nature has not been equipped to deal with our abuse. If nature recovers a natural cycle, and if humans do not change their carbon habits, then we will not be part of the new cycle. Sustained warming is a real problem and is rooted in human habits.



          Why have we not seen this as our own problem? How come we continually flood the environment with CFC’s? Again, we have not seen the complexity of our situation. For example, people are ready to argue that the pollution that contributes to global warming is an industrial problem. This distancing is the first mistake. The distance prevents depth, an essential component of thinking of complex solutions. Humanity’s reach is global from New York City to Antarctica. Our decisions at home contribute to only one percent of the sea ice from 1985 managing to refreeze into the Arctic ice pack at winter maximum (“Loss of very Old Ice” 2018). The loss of older, thicker ice due to increased global temperatures from a lack of ozone protection creates a negative feedback loop that makes it easier for more, thinner ice to melt, decreasing the overall size of the ice pack (“Loss of very Old Ice” 2018). The sheer volume of ice melting will lead to greater flooding due to higher sea levels. Hurricanes and other tropical storms could devastate our homes with higher-level storm surges. On natural disasters, global warming is actually contributing to unnaturally frequent formations of tropical storms. On natural disturbances, increased global temperatures induce brush fires. On natural progressions, brush fires often expand and create intense wildfires, producing “pyrocumulonimbus clouds” (Sever). Long-lasting in the stratosphere, these smoky clouds push out ozone-rich air and catalyze reactions that damage ozone (Sever). The lack of ozone can ruin crop yields, essential to humans (Sever). These few problems are under our blanket “global warming” problem, which is intensified by significant losses of the ozone layer.



          At the rate that society is behaving, the ozone layer is not being replenished any time soon. “At a recent meeting in San Francisco of the American Geophysical Union, scientists suggested that the restoration of the ozone layer might not be accomplished until 2065,” (“Ozone Recovery” 2006) and during this time of less ozone, people would be subject to increased UV radiation and global warming. Essentially, the chlorine reactants of atmospheric chemical reactions, in the form of chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, destroy ozone molecules (Mannan et al. 2). Ozone filters UV radiation that can cause skin cancer, cataracts, and further heat the Earth from the sun. Though the Montreal Protocol mitigated the release of CFCs, it is only slowing down ozone depletion. In order to avoid further side-effects of ozone depletion society needs to take action to replenish it. How would you mitigate climate change through technological innovation? What ideas do you have to repay the environmental debt that humans have occurred?



“Global Warming Natural Cycle.” OSS Foundation, OSS Foundation, 12 Oct. 2014, _____ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle.
“Loss of Very Old Ice Over Time.” Climate.gov, ARC 2017,  Mark Tschudi, NOAA Climate.gov, _____https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/2018-arctic-report-card-less-1-percent-_____arctic-ice-has-survived-four-or.
Mannan et al., “The relevance of reactions of the methyl peroxy radical (CH3O2) and _____methylhypochlorite (CH3OCl) for Antarctic chlorine activation and ozone loss.” Tellus: Series _____B, vol. 70 issue 1, 2018 December, p1-18.
Reisman, John P. “Parallel Climate Model Ensembles.” Skeptical Science, OSS Foundation, _____https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.html.
Sever, Megan. “Intense Wildfires Send Smoke Soaring.” Science News, vol. 196 issue 5, 2019 _____September 4, p12-13.

COVID-19's Impact on the Environment

COVID-19's Impact on the Environment

By: Ashna Mulastanam

As the novel coronavirus, also known as COVID-19, sweeps the world, touching every continent except Antarctica, human lifestyles have drastically changed. Officials everywhere are encouraging social distancing, urging people to stay inside their houses and only go out for crucial necessities in order to avoid interaction that could possibly spread the virus. As a result, most people are stuck at home; most establishments have closed and traffic and trade have both dwindled greatly. Although some students are celebrating the absence of school, many people are struggling to cope with the lack of social interaction and physical movement. No matter which perspective you assume, there is no denying that the emergence of coronavirus has severely altered our way of life. How is this pandemic and the resulting change in lifestyle affecting the environment?

One of the biggest, and perhaps most obvious, impacts of coronavirus on the environment is the significant drop in air pollution. This drop is most noticeable in industrialized nations such as China and those in Europe and is due to the dramatic reduction in vehicle use and manufacturing. Satellite imagery shows shocking drops in nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a gas produced by car engines, power plants, and manufacturing. One of the largest drops in air pollution has been seen in Wuhan, China, where emissions dropped as much as 30% since lockdown in the city began. Another example of this is in New York City, New York, a city infamous for terrible pollution. However, researchers have found that carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide levels in the area have dropped as much as 10% and 50%, respectively. With the streets of New York and similar booming cities eerily devoid of traffic as residents and tourists stay at home, pollution has dramatically decreased. 

                                               

Similarly, water pollution has noticeably decreased. ABC News has reported that Venice waters, known for being rather cloudy and dirty, have become so clear that residents can see the fish at the bottom. This phenomenon is due to the halt of tourism in Venice, Italy as the number of coronavirus cases there began to spike. 

Another effect of COVID-19 on the environment is the reduction in fossil fuel usage. China, one of the biggest producers and consumers of coal, is on severe lockdown for the time, and its consumption of fossil fuels has dropped significantly. China’s major coal-fired power stations saw a 36% drop in coal consumption between February and March of 2020, and this number is likely to increase as the lockdown continues. A second cause of decreasing fossil fuel usage is the rise in domestic energy use and fall in commercial use. As people are self-isolating, whether voluntarily or under government orders, domestic energy use is increasing by about 6 to 8%. However, commercial and educational buildings are being vacated, and their energy consumption is predicted to decrease by as much as 30%. This will ultimately save energy overall as the drop in commercial energy usage compensates for the modest rise in domestic energy usage. 

Overall, scientists and researchers claim that these drops in pollution and energy consumption could help countries reach their Paris Climate Accord goals more rapidly because of the pandemic. Because transportation and production have halted, their emissions have also dropped. Thus, the coronavirus outbreak is helping countries worldwide get closer to their climate goals quicker than they could have normally. 

However, researchers are unsure how these adjustments to human impact on the environment will sustain over a period of time. According to BBC, this is not the first time an epidemic has left its mark on atmospheric pollution. Historic events from pandemics to genocides have caused similar drops in manmade pollution. Eventually, pollution levels rebounded back to their original levels or even increased. Scientists predict that the coronavirus impact will be similar, but rebound time and levels depend on how long the coronavirus pandemic lasts. Overall, 2020 may still see a drop in global emissions even if pollution levels increase after the pandemic. How long will this pandemic last? Will global emissions return to their original levels after the outbreak? How will human lifestyles adjust once lockdowns are lifted?

Henriques, Martha. “Will Covid-19 Have a Lasting Impact on the 

Environment?” BBC, 27 Mar. 2020, www.bbc.com/future/article/2020032 

6-covid-19-the-impact-of-coronavirus-on-the-environment. 

McFadden, Christopher. “7 Ways the Coronavirus is Affecting the 

Environment.” Interesting Engineering, 26 Mar. 2020, interestingenginee 

ring.com/7-ways-the-coronavirus-is-affecting-the-environment.

Jacobo, Julia. “Venice Canals are Clear Enough to See Fish as Coronavirus 

Halts Tourism in the City.” ABC News, 18 Mar. 2020, abcnews.go.com/ 

International/venice-canals-clear-fish-coronavirus-halts-tourism-city/stor

y?id=69662690&cid=social_twitter_abcn. 

Municipal Solid Waste and its Disposal

Nithilan Maanidhii

As we accumulate more and more material goods in our lives, the need arises to dispose of the things that we have no use for. We either recycle or reuse old products, or we simply thrown them in the trash. The trash that we throw away is known as “Municipal Solid Waste,” or MSW. MSW is a general term that encompasses virtually all waste thrown away by humans, including waste from businesses, federal agencies, farms, and construction and demolition. Since the year 1980, MSW generation in the US has increased by 73%, to what it is today, a staggering 262 million tons per year. All of this waste is handled in one of two ways: either it is sent to incineration plants to be burned, or it is sent to landfills to be stored in a relatively stable environment. However, despite it seeming like this waste is handled safely and without harm being caused to the environment, the opposite is true.

When your trash is collected once every week, the garbage truck sometimes takes it to an incineration plant, where MSW is put into an incinerator and burned to ash. This compacts the trash by around 80% of its weight and volume and be allows MSW to be stored more easily. The heat produced by the combustion is also used in electricity generation, which saves fossil fuels. While this is a simple solution to the problem of MSW accumulation, it is not a completely smart or environmentally friendly solution. The types of materials that incinerators burn are mainly synthetic materials, like plastics, and when these plastics are burned, a wide variety of pollutants and contaminants are produced, like carbon dioxide, methane, heavy metals, and micro particles, which can cause cancers and deformities in humans, and contribute to climate change, smog, and acid rain. The ash that is produced from incineration also can spread into the air and contaminate it (called fly ash), or leach dangerous chemicals into the air (bottom ash).

The other major way that MSW is dealt with is through storing it in landfills, which accounts for about half of all MSW generated, including much of the ash produced from incineration. While landfills seem safe and free from potential contamination, they are actually the cause of many environmental problems. To prevent leaching of toxic chemicals into the soil and groundwater around the landfill, the law requires landfills to be lined with plastic, clay, or both, as they are relatively impermeable substances. Unfortunately, though, plastic can deteriorate and clay can become increasingly porous over time, allowing dangerous chemicals to leach out of the landfills and potentially harm humans. The environmental consequences of landfills also go beyond just leaching. Because landfills contain so much organic, rotting matter, the bacteria present in the landfill readily decompose the waste and convert it into a gas containing CO2 and methane, known as landfill gas. Due to the landfill gas containing methane in addition to carbon dioxide, it is more effective at trapping the sun’s heat and contributing to global warming. This problem is more imminent than we may think, as Texas is one of the most prominent landfill gas producers in the United States behind California, with a total of 331.8 million cubic feet of methane gas produced every day. The impacts of landfills go even beyond this, with another major issue being the heavy usage of land area to establish landfills on and the subsequent destruction of animal habitats and native species, which decreases an area’s biodiversity and resistance to change.

It is clear that Municipal Solid Waste and its proper disposal is an important topic in today’s society. While the future may look grim, the rate of recycling and improvements in disposal technology are rapidly increasing, with the US recycling around 40% of all the waste produced. Because improvements are constantly being sought out and made, the next step in waste reduction comes from the people who actually throw away so much MSW—us, as human beings—, and if the amount of waste that is thrown away is reduced, it will lessen the impact of MSW on the environment. 

Important questions to ask yourself include: What will happen in the future if this process of throwing away and disposing of waste continues to grow? What role do you, as a member of society, play in this environmental crisis? What kinds of measures can you take to reduce the constant stream of MSW into the world’s landfills and incinerators?

Sources:

http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/municipal-solid-waste-factsheet

https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/html/index.html

https://www.clf.org/blog/municipal-solid-waste-is-a-problem/

https://www.saveonenergy.com/land-of-waste/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/is-burning-trash-a-good-way-to-dispose-of-it-waste-incineration-in-charts

https://www.clf.org/blog/whats-wrong-with-burning-our-trash-anyway/

The Dangers of Electronic Waste

The Human and Environmental Effects of E-Waste

By Nathan Kosub

Electronic Waste, or E-waste, describes discarded electrical or electronic devices. Used electronics which are destined for refurbishment, reuse, resale, salvage recycling through material recovery, or disposal are also considered e-waste. But with the increase in technology along with its constant evolving, what happens to disposed electronics and specifically what happens when the right steps are not taken. Each year, approximately 40 metric tons of e-waste are produced and are dealt with through practices such as shredding, dismantling, and burning the electronic devices. The problem is the amount of emissions produced in dealing with e-waste (especially burning), which produces carbon emissions that deal a heavy blow to our ozone layer.

The biggest issue of e-waste is not what electronic it is but instead what it is made of. A recent study about the rising electronic pollution in the USA revealed that the average computer screen has five to eight pounds or more of Lead representing 40 percent of all the lead in US landfills. All these toxins are persistent, bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs) that create environmental and health risks when computers are incinerated, put in landfills or melted down. Such practices can lead to lead burning and producing carbon emissions, as well as having the lead seep into the ground, which poisons the ground and could even infiltrate and pollute the groundwater. Liquid and atmospheric releases end up in bodies of water, groundwater, soil, and air and therefore in land and sea animals – both domesticated and wild, in crops eaten by both animals and human, and in drinking water.

One example of failed e-waste management comes from third world countries, 50-80% of all informal recycling is dealt by countries like China, India, Pakistan, and the Philippines. With burning and informal recycling of e-wastes, primary and secondary exposure to toxic metals, such as lead, results mainly from open-air burning used to retrieve valuable components such as gold. Combustion from burning e-waste creates fine particulate matter, which is linked to pulmonary and cardiovascular disease. Guiyu is known as the largest e-waste recycling site in the world, and the city’s residents exhibit substantial digestive, neurological, respiratory, and bone problems. For example, 80 percent of Guiyu’s children experience respiratory ailments, and are especially at risk of lead poisoning. Other third world countries experience a rapid influx of e-waste, with around 70% of their e-wastes being from other nations, leading to continued air, water, and ground contamination for the citizens of these countries.

So who's to blame for the accumulated electronic debris? While corporations play a big role in production through cheap labor and mass production, the consumer plays an even more important role in e-waste and its increase. Electronics like apple products come with new products like iphones almost every year. While good in providing innovation in tech, the rapid production of new products lead consumers to constantly replace their products with newer ones, leading to an increase in discarded oldr models and tech. Another example of consumer issues comes with printers. Printer manufacturers make ink prices very expensive, but also having the printing units themselves being very cheap. These manufacturing practices lead consumers to be upset with the high ink prices and promote buying entirely new printers, which might reduce costs but heavily increase e-wastes.

Questions:
What can can the world do to help effectively reduce the amount of e-wastes?
Why do you think most e-wastes are sent to third world countries?
What can you personally do to contribute in reducing e-wastes?

Works Cited:
https://www.prb.org/e-waste/
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/09/the-global-cost-of-electronic-waste/502019/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste

Impact of Professional Sports on the environment

Hamza Kazi

Impact of Professional Sports on the environment

                Professional Sports have a dominant impact not only on the USA, but all over the world. It helps unite people and give them a team or group to root for. An estimated 3 billion people watch sports worldwide from American football to cricket, the global importance of sports are very clear. However, no one thinks about the environmental footprint professional sports leave behind. For example, the NFL released statistics showing an estimated 17 million people attended games during the 2019 season. Therefore numbers that staggering need to have massive stadiums in order to host this number of people for a 20 week span. One would assume that staggering numbers for just one sport in the nation would lead to a huge environmental impact. However the opposite is just the true when it comes to sports stadiums.
                Obviously sports stadiums do have negative effects on the environment considering pollution due to construction and then vast amount of electricity used. However, considering how many stadiums in the world there are and how many people attend per year, the impact is relatively light. For example, if you combine all the carbon emissions and greenhouse gases from all NHL games it will be about 500,000 tons per year. Compare that with just one single coal plant which can produce up to 23 million tons of carbon emissions per year. This is all been happening in the past decade or so in which professional leagues are taking proper steps to reduce their negative environmental impact. The NFL especially is trying to produce more Eco-friendly practices to help reduce this impact.  The Dallas Cowboys' stadium is the most enticing NFL stadium in the whole league. An estimated 30 million LED light bulbs are used during a game. However, compared to five years ago the solid waste and energy numbers have decreased about 20% each, and water consumption are being decreased millions of gallons every year. Another very appealing stadium is the Metlife stadium home to the Giants and the Jets. However, almost no one knows about the foundation and construction of this stadium as an estimated 90,000 tons of recycled steel was used to construct it. They have also reduced their ecological footprint by an estimated 247,000 metric tons. If you look at another team like the Washington Redskins at FedEx Field, the stadium is powered by roughly 8,000 solar panels. A bit north of that, the Philadelphia Eagle's stadium uses electricity that is completely off the grid. Not only is at off the grid, but they also donate any extra energy back into city's power grid. Levi's stadium in Santa Clara has peeled back water consumption by 50% just by changing their type of turf grass. 
               Switching gears to another league to America's favorite pastime, baseball. The Seattle Mariner's show statistics in which they have decreased waste by 50% on average per year, compared to that of the past decade. Them, along with most of the other stadiums take very good measures to ensure this such as the food not sold is donated to social services, and composting the food scraps. Another team, the San Diego Padres partnered with a bio fuels company, and they scrap their used cooking oil and recycle that to power local school buses. This decreases carbon emissions of the bus and avoids the idea of disposing of potentially harmful waste. All of these measures may seem very minor individually, but when you put into perspective how many sports stadiums there are and how a majority of them are taking steps to reduce negative impact on the environment we can see how times have changed. Not only american sports, but if you take a global event as large as the Olympics you can see examples of ways these organizations are making a change. In a report by Wharton University of Pennsylvania, they titled the 2012 London Olympics as the "greenest ever" as 86% of visitors took public transportation and about 99% of the waste for the event was recycled or re used
               However, the world of sports isn't technically all innocent. In a research study made by Cardiff University, they found that an average attendee of the Football Association Challenge Cup Final has a ecological footprint seven times greater compared to someone who carries about their life through average activity. People still have to account for the enormous amount of uncleaned trash in the stands, the irrigation required for the fields nearby or in the stadium, and the water consumption by the bathroom. This also doesn't take into consideration of college and high school stadiums of any kind, as they don't necessarily have the funding, nor the care for implementing eco-friendly practices. In order for sports to become as environmentally productive as possible, most if not all stadiums in every sport should take into consideration some of the practices mentioned above. 
How do you feel like sports stadiums will evolve over the next decade to be eco friendly?
Which stadium did you feel like was the most impressive in terms of their practices?
How can fans of these events help out in a way to conserve and help the environment?

Sources 

https://scs.georgetown.edu/news-and-events/article/5735/going-long-and-going-green-how-nfl-embracing-sustainability

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/reducing-sports-impact-environment/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2017/12/11/big-sports-events-have-big-environmental-footprints-could-social-licenses-to-operate-help/#52ccae3f50cf