 Samuel Cohen
Introduction For as long as humanity has engaged in agriculture, people have diverted water and transported it often extremely far distances to support agriculture, even in areas that had little water available locally. Irrigation has allowed for agriculture in many areas of land that could support agriculture but lacked a sufficient water supply and allowed for the transformation of deserts and other arid regions that had no previous ability to support agriculture. However there have many negative consequences that have come about from industrialized agriculture, the most common of which involves the excessive diversion of water from lakes and rivers which has led many large rivers and freshwater lakes to run dry. The ability to divert water on a massive scale is made worse by unnecessary water demands made by growing water intensive crops in areas with arid climates, many of the crops grown in arid regions are species or cultivars that may not be appropriate for arid regions, and the use of agricultural monocultures leads to an inefficient use of water. (Robbins et al, pp 283-296) A Brief History of Irrigation and Aqueducts Many ancient civilizations that relied on agriculture such as Egypt and Mesopotamia built aqueducts, dams and canals to support agriculture during dry times of the year when there was little water available from rivers. The irrigation of steep hillsides was carried out by numerous civilizations around the world by terracing hillsides and then flooding the terraced land to support a wide variety of crops. Indigenous groups in the America’s also built canals to support agriculture in arid areas. (Easy Irrigation) People living in the Rio Grande de Nazca basin in what is now Peru dug systems of trenches, wells and tunnels in the ground called puquios as a way to collect groundwater as the river basin had much lower volumes of surface flow compared to other river basins in the region, and the paltry amount of surface water was insufficient to support the basin’s population, and these challenges were exacerbated during times of drought. This method of diverting groundwater differed from the more traditional diversions from surface rivers and lakes, but the puquios were necessary in the Nazca basin as the Nazca river was known to have areas where the river disappeared underground due to the basin’s deep alluvium and geological faulting, and the river would then remerge into its bed further downstream. (Rickenbach, 89-96) Puquios consisted of a horizontal tunnel that could be hundreds of meters in length, into which water would collect, there would be openings in the roofs of these gunnels from which water could be collected. Further downstream puquios would become open trenches lined with stones which would eventually lead to reservoirs that acted as distribution points for most of the water’s users. Communities in this region of Peru still use and maintain all portions of the puquios with some more modern improvements made to them. (Rickenbach, 89-96) Irrigation allowed an ancient civilization to thrive in an area that would have otherwise been too arid, and these changes to the landscape are still in use and support many people to this day. Framework 1: Risks and Hazards: The Aral Sea Prior to the 1960’s, the Aral Sea, was the 4th largest saline lake in the world, and straddled the border between Sovet controlled Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. The only inflows to this closed basin lake were the Syr Darya and Amu Darya rivers to the north and south respectively, contributing to about 80% of its inflow. The remaining 20% came from precipitation into the sea itself, the area surrounding the sea had a very arid climate. Beginning in the 1960’s the soviet government began a series of irrigation projects that would divert nearly of the water from these rivers into irrigation canals. This effectively doomed the sea to shrink and become inhospitable to most life. By the 1990’s the salinity of the sea increased tenfold, (Columbia.edu) and had lost about 40% of its surface area and 60% of its total volume, going from one large lake to several smaller disconnected lakes which occupy the deeper portions of the original basin, and the remnants of the sea have only gotten smaller since them. (Boomer et al) As the sea shrunk and became shallower the rate of evaporation increased, and local humidity decreased which created a feedback loop that accelerated the loss of water. (Columbia.edu) The increased salinity and shrinkage of the lake devastated the sea’s fishing industry due to high salinity levels that made the sea inhospitable to most fish, and also the loss of water caused the coastline to retreat which stranded most of the sea’s fishing fleet and made the lake to shallow for these boats to operate. These changes led to the complete loss of the lake’s fishing industry. (Columbia.edu) The shrinkage of the lake has led to widespread desertification of the surrounding areas, because the local climate has warmed by about 8°C since 1960 and precipitation has been greatly reduced (Small, et al). The loss of surface area has also led to an increase in dust storms caused by the former lakebed being exposed to high winds, and much of this dust has been comprised of salt, which when combined with desertification has caused soil salination around the former lake, impeding the agriculture that had originally led to the area’s current situation. The agricultural projects that led to the loss of most of the sea were intended to support the growing of a wide variety of crops but two of the most commonly grown crops in the Aral Sea’s basin were cotton and rice. The growing of these crops continued beyond the end of Soviet Union and Uzbekistan remains the world second largest exporter of cotton despite the country’s generally arid climate, (Columia.edu) however the loss of the Sea and its formerly abundant fisheries have come at the cost of widespread poverty in the communities located on the sea’s former shoreline. (Chen) Recently Kazakhstan has attempted to restore the portion of the Aral Sea in its territory by reducing the amount of water diverted from the Syr Darya river and building a dam which separated the lake’s northern basin from the rest of the former sea. The dam, which was built in 2005, has increased the northern basin’s depth by 10 feet and reduced salinity in this portion of the lake, and by 2016 the lake became hospitable enough for fish that commercial fishing, once the areas main economic driver had become viable again. The Kazach government also encouraged polices that would reduce agricultural water usage by promoting drip irrigation, reducing the amount of water lost during conveyance through irrigation canals, and increasing the efficiency of water dispersal on farmland. (Bekchanov et al)However, the dam project has held back water that once entered the scattered lakes of the Aral Sea’s southern basin which has only exacerbated the desertification of that region. Additionally, the Uzbek government has decided to continue to grow cotton on a large scale by diverting water from the sea and has not adopted any policies that would reduce water usage from these farms. (Chen) These differences in policy have led to unequal outcomes between the two countries with Kazakhstan beginning to once again benefit from the economic and ecological benefits that the sea once offered them while Uzbekistan has continued to abide by Soviet-era policies which has accelerated the loss of the sea and increased desertification in the region. The decision by Kazakhstan to build a dam separating the basins has benefited their people but has made the situation for the people and ecosystems of the southern basin somewhat worse. The growing of water intensive crops in an area with limited natural precipitation was only possible due to large-scale irrigation projects. Advances in technology that allow for the growing of water intensive crops in dry climates on an industrial scale have led to short-term economic benefits for some portion of the population, (Robbins et al, pp 283-296) but comes at the expense of ecological degradation that impoverishes other groups, destroys previously stable ecosystems and eventually curtails the initial economic benefits that came about from it. Framework 2: Environmental Justice: A History of Owens Valley A similar crisis to the loss of the Aral Sea is occurring in California but on a smaller scale. Located in the Owens valley, Owens lake was an endorheic lake that received water from the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada but has lost nearly al of its volume over the past century. The Owens valley was a 75-mile-long closed basin located just east of the Sierra Nevada, in the range’s rain shadow. Most of the lake’s inflow came from the Owens River, which was fed by snowmelt from the Sierra, as the valley itself had comparatively little precipitation. (Creason) They valley, previously occupied by the Paiute tribe was home to a small number of farmers and ranchers during the late 19th and early 20th century. At this time the City of Los Angeles was rapidly outgrowing the local water sources they were using at the time and needed to bring in water from outside the area. In the first decade of the 20th century, city officials began to quietly purchase land and water rights from existing landholders, eventually controlling 25% of the valley floor and gained water rights to nearly all of the Owens river’s flow. (Sahagun) Construction soon began after and by 1913, an aqueduct ran from the valley to the growing city of Los Angeles. Although the federal government had plans to build an irrigation system to serve the farmers and ranchers at the time, this effort was blocked by Los Angeles and the people living in the valley had lost most of their water rights that they had previously had. (Creason) This loss of water access devastated the local economy, and even led to sections of the aqueduct being dynamited by valley farmers in 1924. The loss of surface and groundwater also contributed to massive die offs of trees and shrubs and the bed of the now dry Owens lake was now exposed to the valley’s strong winds which made the area prone to large dust storms. (Creason) These dust storms have been so severe that the lakebed had become the largest source of fine particulate particle pollution in the United States, causing health problems for people living throughout the southwestern US including Los Angeles, (Gillette et al) and further interfered with agriculture in the area (Sahagun) These issues caused and are still causing serous problems for the people living in Owens valley, and the only beneficiaries of the project is the population of southern California. This abuse of what had been a commonly held resource for the people of Owens Valley has led to many legal battles against LA’s city government which have recently resulted in concessions and settlements by the city. Starting in 1997, the LA department of water and power agreed to reduce their diversions from the Owens River so parts of the lake would reflood reducing dust pollution. In addition to this, in 2017, Inyo county, where Owens lake is located started to use eminent domain to acquire land in the valley that was owned by the LADWP as a means to regain local control of some of the valley’s water rights, as the amount of water that LA had allotted to towns and residents in the valley had never been enough to meet their needs (Sahagun) This long lasting dispute between the city of Los Angeles and the residents and officials in Inyo county is an example of the loss of a once commonly held resource. Los Angeles has a far larger population than Owens valley and a far greater need for water. However, the people living in Owens valley lack the capital and resources to import water to meet their own needs while Los Angeles does have the means to import water from elsewhere, therefore Owens valley is more negatively affected by a lack of water than Los Angeles. The fact that people living in Owens Valley lost control of their own water source and gained no tangible benefit from this exchange, while people living far away benefited greatly is an example of environmental injustice, and the acquisition of land and water rights by local authorities from Los Angeles is a good way to achieve some environmental justice. Conclusion The collecting of water to be transported elsewhere can be a huge benefit to people by allowing sufficient food to be grown to meet the public’s need. However, it needs to be done in a way that does not harm an areas ecology. Water diversion should be used to grow crops that are appropriate for the climate they are being grown it, and it should be done in a way to ensure equitable access for the people living in the area that the water is being diverted from. The ecological consequences for the area from which water is being diverted should not be ignored in the name of economic productivity, as these benefits may not actually last long or be worth the cost. Sources Bekchanov, Maksud, et al. “Optimizing Irrigation Efficiency Improvements in the Aral Sea Basin.” Water Resources and Economics, Elsevier, 21 Aug. 2015, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212428415300050 Boomer, Ian, et al. “The Palaeolimnology of the Aral Sea: a Review.” Quaternary Science Reviews, Pergamon, 27 July 2000, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379100000020 Chen, Dene-Hern. “The Country That Brought a Sea Back to Life.” BBC Future, BBC, 22 July 2018, www.bbc.com/future/article/20180719-how-kazakhstan-brought-the-aral-sea-back-to-life -, Glen Creason, et al. “CityDig: Here's What Owens Lake Looked Like Before Los Angeles Drank It Dry Los Angeles Magazine.” Los Angeles Magazine, 6 Apr. 2016, www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/citydig-heres-what-owens-lake-looked-like-before-los-angeles-drank-it-dry/. “French Fries.” Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, by Paul Robbins et al., 2nd ed., Wiley Blackwell, 2014, pp. 283–296. Gillette, Dale, et al. “A Combined Modeling and Measurement Technique for Estimating Windblown Dust Emissions at Owens (Dry) Lake, California.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, vol. 109, no. F1, 2004, doi:10.1029/2003jf000025. “A History of Agricututure.” Easy Irrigation, www.easy-irrigation.co.uk/a-history-of-agricultural-page-29?zenid=dieo0smudlrh1jastqb5g9nj37 “L.A. Took Their Water and Land a Century Ago. Now the Owens Valley Is Fighting Back.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 13 July 2017, www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-owens-valley-eminent-domain-20170712-story.html. Rickenbach, Judith. “Nasca Puquios and Aqueducts.” Museum Rietberg Zürich, Translated by David Proulx, 1999, pp. 89–96., http://people.umass.edu/~proulx/online_pubs/Zurich_Puquios_revised_small.pdf Small, Eric E., et al. “The Effects of Desiccation and Climatic Change on the Hydrology of the Aral Sea.” Journal of Climate, vol. 14, no. 3, 1 Feb. 2001, pp. 300–322., doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2001)013<0300:teodac>2.0.co;2. Thompson, T.M. “The Future of the Aral Sea.” The Aral Sea Crisis, Columbia University, 2008, www.columbia.edu/~tmt2120/introduction.htm
0 Comments
Introduction
The practice of yoga has been gifted to the West from India with its history of thousands of years of spiritual traditions that are practiced for better health and disease prevention led by severe self-discipline. The practice of yoga is unlike that of any other physical endeavor with its complex layers of benefits to health as well as spirtual connection between the mind-body. With the transition of yoga being adopted into American health culture we have also adopted the yoga mat as the main tool to practice on. While it might appear that this health kick that has swept the United States in increasing population there has been a lack of sufficiency in the sustainability of the mat that these health and spiritual regimes are practiced over which(National). Throughout the transition of origin that yoga has made becoming westernaulizated, the entirety of its practice has been tainted by western culture as well with the market skyrocketing in yoga mat purchases that truly misconstrue the entire concept to begin with. When the yoga mat is rolled out onto American soil it is not to cover the roots of spiritual connection that India has worshiped within this practice for thousands of years, for it is the mat that we have adopted and seem to carelessly forget the international practice purpose throughout its commercialization. A Short History The power of yoga was greatly led in India by Tirumalai Krishnamacharya and brought to western civilization for the first time by a young woman in the 1950’s, Indra Devi who opened the first yoga studio in Hollywood, California(Hammond). Not only was Indra Devi the first woman admitted into Krishnamacharya’s school of yoga in 1937 but she then brought in to America to open a school and educate generations of American’s the practice of yoga which eventually led to the westernization which we now refer to too often as Modern Yoga(Smith). The yoga boom began during the “flower power” rise of the 1960’s where hippies began to approach health in a groovy flow they found from eastern philosophers. Also during 1961, Richard Hittleman began pioneering yoga on television which he continued for decades influencing hundreds of Americans through a mainstream health platform from his spiritual learning background of yoga(Singleton). This was the beginning of the spread of yoga in the west which boomed along the west and east coast, eventually reaching an impact on today's more than 20 million Americans who practice yoga(Cramer). The 1980’s and 1990’s were the predominant growth period of yoga schools and institutions that were fueled in marketing demands by leaders like Ram Dass who’s spiritual quest of life opened a third eye for a new generation that rooted into spirituality. It was not until the 1990’s that the commercialization of the yoga mat began to sweep the nation as well despite the priceless health benefits that one receives from practicing yoga, the true expense to this practice lies in the mat that puts zero investment towards the longevity of our planet. Lens 1 - Environmental Ethics Yoga mats were created in the 1990’s, a breakthrough marketing opportunity that became fashioned from all ranges of high-end to cheap, with traces of plastic The popularity of yoga peaking in the nineties paired the promotion of health and became America’s mainstream workout routine and cure all that seemingly has no down side. The true down side was surely the underside that we learned to stand over. The fashion industry is partially to blame for the lack of sustainable efforts behind the yoga mat, but to no efforts did the product ever need to be withheld in the past. Prior to the creation of a yoga mat, the practice was done in connection with nature which was often in grass, sand, wooden floors, rugs or towels(Jain). There is growing research that shows practice holds higher health benefits for mental and emotional health, sleep and balance, and stress management when your body is grounded to the Earth. By adding a yoga mat to separate the connection of the body and the soil, with a non nature material, is breaking the connection of the practice with a tamper on the cultural history of this westernization of yoga. Studios quickly began to open across the nation and with the price of the membership there is a cost to the accessories and a yoga mat is a must in the idea of sanitation and bringing your own is generally expected. That is only part of what has become so modern about yoga in the west, its own culture began to evolve in high expenses not because of the health but due to the location of the venue and the mat that’s made of plastic and PVC, a known human carcinogen(Webb). The ethics of our environment are used as a reflection of how much deeper we must look within the garbage of our globe, how the toxicity of fast fashion yoga speeds past the point of self-actualization(Robbins). America has begun to accept that the yoga mat is the most “ubiquitous symbol” of itself. Lens 2 - Markets and Commodities Mindfulness and awareness are core elements to the scarcity of yoga, maintaining intentions of practice for the connection you seek to receive from yoga. For Peter Stereios, Manduka creator and San Luis Obispo yoga icon, his mission when creating one of the now leading yoga mats is sustainability with his “Made for Good” campaign mat line(Manduka). Manduka mats are manufactured without toxic emissions and with the intention and goals to encourage their consumers to honor the legacy, think big, strengthen the community, go green, and integrity above all. This brand is particularly a beautiful example in the town that I live in but also provides community on a global aspect to anyone using these mats or connecting through their online practices. Manduka is a brand that I found has curbed the bridge of traditional yoga and modern yoga by adapting with the evolution of westernization and allowing yoga to grow into its sustainability and become a green light of love for our planet. Although the price of their mats are still alternatively higher, the webpage offers free web-streamed yoga classes that connect the community through an interface of worlds. The values that this brand leads the yoga industry in believing not only enhances the health of humans practicing this exercise but also the health of the Earth and connection to the spirituality that has been culturalized with yoga for thousands of years. The demand for yoga has been marketized from so many different approaches that the investment in the health benefits of yoga is essentially free. It is the cost of commodities that consumers have been guilted into purchasing which roots back to the main goal of yoga, maintaining intention and remaining aware(Robbins). By keeping these two aspects close in the practice of business behind yoga, Manduka has been a role leading exempt of how sustainable motive are good moves for yourself, your community, and your planet. Conclusion My take on the exploitation of yoga mats is that this is the magic carpet ride into sustainable health awareness that America needs, especially in the state of the world today. With indoor workouts and low equipment being the new normal and stress relief, sleep and mental health all being trapped closer between doors that are seemingly shut for longer, the modernization of yoga is potentially the savior for the globe. To be connected to the Earth and move the body in the form of power, spiritual or not, allows health and intention into the body and the mind is more care that the entire globe needs. In my opinion, yoga is the most advantage athletic in our economy and one that depends essentially on humans and the planet, the state of our world could use this exercise as a mend to our humanity, together the planet and living beings must sustain together or sustain nothing. From the research I have explored the rolling of the mats have already been spread far and wide, what we must do now is depend upon less than that of the modernization and more on the gratitude of the adoption of this health promotion. The true concern of the world is the intention, the creation of yoga mats is not intended to harm the Earth but rather engage connections back to human groundedness. To see evil in all, is in that only of the eye of evil. It is what one can sustain within themselves and their own practice that they can sustain within this world and all that endures their own world. Citations Cramer Holger, Ward Lesley, Steel Amie, Lauche Romy, Dobos Gustav, Zhang Yan. Prevalence, Patterns, and Predictors of Yoga Use: Results of a U.S. Nationally Representative Survey. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Volume 50, Issue 2. (2016) Pages 230-235. ISSN 0749-3797. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379715004481 Hammond, Holly. Yoga Journal. The timeline and history of yoga in america. (2007). Retrieved from: https://www.yogajournal.com/yoga-101/yogas-trip-america/ Jain, Andrea R. The Washington Post. Opinions. Five myths about yoga. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-yoga/2015/08/14/2b4c8638-41ce-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html Manduka. Our Practice, About Us. (2020). Retrieved from: https://www.manduka.com/pages/about-us National Center for Complementary and Inegrative Health, U.S. Department of Helath and Human Services. (2019). Yoga: what you need to know. Retrieved from https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/yoga-what-you-need-to-know Robbins, Paul, et al. Environment and Society : A Critical Introduction, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/humboldt/detail.action?docID=1582846. Scientific Research Open Access. Open Journal of Preventive Medicine. Grounding the human body during yoga exercise with a grounded yoga mat reduces blood viscosity. (2015). Volume 05, Number 04, Article ID: 55445. Retrived from: https://www.scirp.org/html/2-1340431_55445.htm Singleton, Mark. Yoga Body: The origins of modern posture practice. (2010) Oxford University Press. New York, NY. Google books. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tUgBIrn5REwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=yoga+boom+in+western+society&ots=QYmMl6R6LZ&sig=d8qhxgYAse3PVBrd9CeYUXxbcn8#v=onepage&q&f=false Smith, Helen Kitti. Yoga Journal. Peek into the life of indra devi, an inspirational global yogi. (2007). Retrieved from: https://www.yogajournal.com/yoga-influencers/indra-devi/ Webb, Irina. I read labels for you, helping you live healthy. A guide to non-toxic yoga mat options. (2019) Retreived from: https://ireadlabelsforyou.com/non-toxic-yoga-mat-guide/  Introduction:
|
 | Introduction: For almost a decade, paper towels have been a fundamental aspect of everyday life in wealthy, consumer cultures. Their purpose is to dry or sanitize a large variety of surfaces from kitchens, to bathrooms, and even hands. Their convenience and effectiveness led to their popularity and overabundance. Paper towels are one of the most used paper products in the world, behind toilet paper. The demand for paper towels (especially during Covid-19) fuels the absurd rate of industrial production and consumption of these single-use products. Due to frequent use by massive amounts of Northern American residences each day, paper towels make their way to landfills faster than one could ever imagine. In a little over six years, the commercial consumption of paper towels increased over 40% in the United States and Canada. Although they are not the only countries using paper towels, North Americans seem to rely on them the most, consuming 13 billion pounds of paper towels each year. The United States consumes more paper towels than nearly all of the other contributing countries combined. The unnecessary, excessive use of paper towels in the United States is responsible for the large amounts of paper towels flooding the nation’s landfills, because no, paper towels are not reusable. They account for 2% of landfill waste in America alone, which may not seem significant at first, but it’s important to keep in mind landfills’ impacts on climate change and air pollution. The consumption of paper towels in the U.S, regardless of their negative health and environmental implications, reflects Americans' relationship with the world and how they treat (or better yet, use) their environment. Short History of Object: Paper towels emerged in American culture and on the shelves of its supermarkets during the early 1930s. The leading paper producing company of the time was none other than The Scott Paper Company, founded by brothers Clarence and Irvin Scott in 1879. The original creation of paper towels was purely accidental. The company had an entire railcar worth of toilet tissue that was deemed “too thick” for bathroom use. To prevent such a massive economic loss, Irvin drew inspiration from an old school teacher and decided to cut the material into single sheets, branded them as sanitation towels, and put them on the market. (Just another example of capitalist economic motives causing damage to the environment). This product became known as “sani-towels” and would soon lead to the development of the modern paper towel intended for kitchen use. It took a reasonable period of time before the product became popular but once it did, it became a relative ‘necessity’ for everyday life. People in the U.S began using paper towels everywhere, for just about everything. The usefulness of paper towels is arguably undermined by the vast amounts of environmental and health related implications tied to their production, transportation, consumption and disposal (although largely unknown/ignored at the time and today). Life Cycle Assessment: Nearly every phase of a paper towel’s life is harmful to the environment. The only time paper towels aren’t contributing to CO2 emissions would be during the momentary period of physical use. Other than that, paper towels pollute the Earth during every moment of their life cycle, from start to finish. The entire cycle consists of over half a dozen hazardous phases: forestry, pulp production, pulp transportation, paper towel production/packaging, product distribution, and lastly, consumption and disposal, each of which require large amounts of energy and natural resources. Paper towels are the second most used paper product in the world. The [paper] industry consumes more water than any other industry on the planet, while simultaneously establishing itself as the fifth largest energy consumer on a global scale and third largest industrial polluter in the U.S. To make 1 ton of paper towels, 17 trees are cut down and 20,00 gallons of water are polluted. Not to mention the use of petroleum, crude oil, fuel and polyethylene for production, distribution and packaging purposes. The environmental damage doesn’t stop at distribution, it follows the product all the way to its disposal in landfills, which have significantly high rates of C02 emissions. The environmental implications of paper towel consumption are no secret, the information is easily accessible with one simple Google search. However, paper towels are still flying off the shelves, now more than ever, due to the Covid pandemic, capitalist economic motives and consumer culture. Lens/Framework 1: Political Economy The current political economy of consumer societies facilitates anthropocentric ideologies and capitalism. Populations of people living in these societies believe that humans are the most important species on the planet and value commodities over ecosystems. This mentality fuels the increasing disconnect between people and nature which perpetuates consumer culture and industrialization. The paper towel industry inherits characteristics of global capitalism and uneven development. The American/western/capitalist general desire for economic prosperity allows corporations and industries in one nation to hoard and abuse a large portion of the Earth’s resources. Producing modern commodities, like paper towels, puts other countries, populations, and ecosystems at risk for cash and convenience. These values and activities are rooted in political policies that thrive in the American economy and culture. The commodification of trees (for paper towel production) is just one of the many examples of society valuing tree-based goods more than the trees themselves. People are willing to contribute to deforestation and pollution for accessibility to paper towels at their local grocery store. The means of production correlated to the life cycle of paper towels are driven by capitalist ecology and anthronpectric ideologies that exhibit the cruel reality of consumer cultures’ relationship with nature. In this perspective, the world’s resources (land, plants, water, air, etc.) are all meant to be used and profited off of, rather than respected and preserved. The Scott brothers and paper company had a choice between taking a large economic loss or contributing to the destruction of the Earth to make a profit and save their wallets. They, like many other companies and capitalist corporations, chose the latter. Lens/Framework 2: Risks and Hazards Hazards are anything that threaten individuals or societies in terms of production and paper towels have many. There are a few different categories of hazards associated with paper towel usage and the paper industry as a whole. The first being the impacts on human health, which include: ozone depletion, smog formation, global climate effects, and ionizing radiation. Immediately following is the extensive list of impacts on natural resources such as fossil fuel depletion, water depletion, land occupation/transformation, metal depletion, and continued reliance on nonrenewable energy. Last, and certainly not least, are the effects on environmental quality that cause marine and freshwater eutrophication and acidification. It’s hard to say what’s more depressing, the hazardous nature of paper towel usage or societies risk perception. Individuals and corporations are responsible for choosing whether or not to participate in hazardous/risky behavior. The common perception of capitalist societies and individual consumers are usually influenced/reinforced by social dynamics, as stated in the cultural theory. Americans are aware of the risks of using non-reusable/recyclable products (like paper towels) and use them religiously anyways. This is due to consumer tendencies of valuing convenience over environments. The capitalist fueled disconnect between people and nature is causing and perpetuating this sort of behavior. Middle class people living in wealthy nations tend not to face the environmental effects of their actions, they're so separated from nature that they mistakenly believe they are living outside of it. 544,000 trees would be preserved if every family used one less roll of paper towels and apparently, that is still too much to ask. Their choice to use paper towels says a lot about their perception and relationship with nature, especially considering the presence of ‘greener’ alternatives like reusable cloths, compostable paper towels, and air dryers. They know these options exist, yet they choose the harmful, paper based product anyways because it's the “quicker picker upper.” Not acknowledging or changing their culturally normalized, detrimental behavior says more than enough about their thoughts on preserving nature. Conclusion: Consumers can find paper towel rolls on the shelves of dollar stores across the nation. The monetary cost of paper towels is incompatible to the environmental cost of producing and disposing of this single product. Humans pay the price of deforestation, pollution and waste production in exchange for sheets of paper, smothered in bleach and chemicals, that ‘guarantee’ to clean up messes. It’s rather ironic that a product created to clean up messes, is causing environmental messes on such a large, global scale. Companies are inputting fuel sources, chemicals, water and electricity to output a single use piece of paper material. More than 51,000 trees are chopped to meet the demands of U.S paper towel consumption. 254 million tons of these paper towels make their way to landfills across the global, in any given year. The risks and hazard of paper towel consumption is high, but the general ignorance of consumer societies seems to be higher. The people using paper towels the most (U.S citizens) are the most detached from nature, which is reflected in their daily choices. The recent Covid-19 pandemic increased the demand for paper towels, putting more money in the pockets of harmful corporations and putting the environment at even more risk than ever before. One way to reduce waste production and paper towel usage would be to switch to washable alternatives. It may require energy and water to wash a dirty rag but not nearly as much as it costs the Earth to produce a pack of paper towels. |
 | Kory Shipcott |
By: John Levis
Introduction
Every day millions of people apply sunscreen in order to protect their skin from the harmful rays of the sun, but at what cost to their and the environment’s health. In recent years people have questioned whether sunscreen should continue to be allowed to be sold due to the devastating effects it has on the environment and the possible medical repercussions that it may have. In fact, The New York Times showed that the damage sunscreen causes to the environment is so great that it has caused some countries to outright ban the product such as, “The Western Pacific nation of Palau has become the first country to ban many kinds of sunscreen, in a move to protect its coral reefs from chemicals that scientists say cause significant damage.”(Xu, 1). A multitude of studies done in the past decade have determined that sunscreen is extremely dangerous to the environment as it has been killing coral reefs and many other species of marine life. It is important to note that not all types of sunscreen are bad for the environment, or for people; as a matter of fact it is only chemical sunscreen that causes these issues. Physical sunscreens have been tested many times and the results have consistently shown that it causes no harm to both the environment and people. The main issue with chemical sunscreen to people is that almost all of the different chemicals have been proven to soak into the skin of those who use the product. The Washington Post has reported that, “Some experts are concerned that these chemicals may be absorbed through the skin, leading to skin irritation, hormonal disruption — even skin cancer. The Food and Drug Administration recently called for more research on the safety and effectiveness of these chemicals.”(Consumer Reports, 3). Due to sunscreen being such an old product it was grandfathered in by the FDA and did not have to undergo rigorous testing as other drugs have. Therefore, the negative effects on people who use the product have not been extensively researched, making the recent claims that it can cause serious damage all the more worrying.
A Brief History of Sunscreen
The sun’s ultraviolet (UV) rays have been a problem for humans due to its potential to cause skin cancer and sunburns. While most of the types of sunscreen people use nowadays have only been invented in the last 100 years, ancient civilization had been using a variety of herbs to make their own forms of sunscreen/skin care for many centuries. In fact, The Block Island Organics pointed out that, “Egyptians, to prevent their skin from tanning, used a concoction of rice bran, jasmine and lupine. According to research today - rice bran can absorb UV light, jasmine helps repair DNA and lupine lightens skin. Ancient Greeks employed olive oil for sun protection and Native Americans used a type of pine needle to soothe sunburns.”(Kelly, 3). Many of the ingredients used by early civilizations are still found today in sunscreen products around the world. Humans around the world have been trying to prevent the damaging effects of the sun for thousands of years with varying types of plant extracts, but it wasn’t until the late 1930’s that a tested method for skin cancer and sunburns caused by the sun had been invented. ThoughtCo. described when the first sunscreen with an actual protection factor was invented, “In 1938, an Austrian chemist named Franz Greiter invented one of the first big sunscreen products. Greiter's sunscreen was called "Gletscher Crème" or "Glacier Cream" and had a sun protection factor (SPF) of two.”(Bellis, 5). An SPF of two means that it takes twice as long for your skin to burn in the same intensity of sunlight. With the increased use of sunscreens, Greiter decided to create a standardized method of rating the strength and effectiveness of sunscreens by the invention of the SPF rating system. It can be used to help people determine the correct sunscreen for their particular skin. Sadly, the sunscreen products that gained the most widespread use were chemical sunscreens because they did not leave a colored layer over your skin, often seen as white, as physical sunscreens do. Physical sunscreens are similar to chemical sunscreen in how they protect against the sun’s rays, but their main ingredients, the minerals zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, have shown to be GRASE (generally recognized as safe and effective). Currently there are seventeen FDA approved UV filters that are used in sunscreens with fifteen of them are being chemical and the remaining two being mineral. Of the fifteen chemical ingredients used in sunscreen products there is insufficient data for them to currently be considered GRASE.
Lens/Framework 1: Social Construction of Nature
In the textbook 'Environment and Society’ it is shown that mankind has an extremely destructive relationship with nature; often continuing practices that lead to the downfall of environments. This is especially true with how people have dealt with the rapid destruction of coral reefs caused by sunscreen products. Most chemical sunscreen is a mixture of about 12 different chemicals that block harmful UVA and UVB rays from absorbing as quickly into the skin. The most dangerous of these chemicals is Oxybenzone which has been shown repeatedly that it kills many different kinds of marine life, and coral reefs are among the most affected. After extensive research The Morro Bay National Estuary Program determined that, “Oxybenzone acts as a genotoxicant to coral reefs, meaning that it damages the corals’ DNA. This damage ultimately kills the corals’ offspring, also known as planulae. The chemical does this by disrupting the skeletal endocrine of each planula, which essentially makes the planula encase itself in its own bone structure and die.”(MBNEP, 9). Oxybenzone is still a chemical component of almost all chemical sunscreen even after multiple studies have shown that it is a genotoxicant for coral, meaning that it causes deadly mutations at the genic level of coral. It also affects the algae around the coral causing impairment in growth and photosynthesis, eventually killing off the necessary algae. Additionally, it has also been proven to kill many other species of marine life such as fish, sea urchins, muscles, and even many mammals like dolphins.
If something is not done very soon in regards to the dangers of ingredients in chemical sunscreen then many types of marine life and entire ecosystems will be destroyed. Coral reefs continue to be affected by toxic chemicals as they have for the past decades, so it is only a matter of time until they are no longer able to reproduce and the entire ecosystem will fall apart, causing permanent damage to more than just the coral and marine species in the immediate vicinity. This is due to coral reefs having more benefits than just being an ecosystem, which is already important enough, they also provide for humans just about as much as they do animals. In fact, Coral reefs are one of the biggest natural protectors of coastline erosion and flooding and with them gone many small islands and a lot of coastlines will disappear. Additionally, due to the coral being bleached from the toxic chemicals many countries' tourism industries will be completely ruined, therefore developing countries and small island countries will have massive job loss along with no monetary way to fix the problem. It will also cause food shortages in coastal regions and health industries will lose many life saving drugs produced from coral and the species that live there. Lastly, it is very important to remember that however insignificant a species might appear to be once it is eliminated from a region or goes extinct it will severely impact the natural food chains causing even more marine and land species to fall in numbers.
Lens/Framework 2: Risks and Hazards
While sunscreen effects on the social construction of nature are reason alone to outlaw the product, it also poses just as great a risk and hazard to the health of people. The main issue caused only by chemical sunscreens is that the many chemicals used are actually leaching into people’s bloodstream. A new study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association determined that, “It shows that the six active ingredients tested were absorbed into the body. Some continued to be elevated beyond the FDA’s threshold of concern for 3 weeks after the people in the study stopped putting them on their skin. For example, blood concentrations of oxybenzone were more than 180 times the FDA’s level of concern after a single application of sunscreen.”(WebMD, 22). This data is extremely concerning as tests have only recently been done on how much of these chemicals absorb into a person’s system and they have shown to be hundreds of times more than the allowed amount by the FDA. The fact that these chemicals are over 180 times the allotted amount after just one application and that they stay in someone's system for many weeks has shown that there needs to be much more extensive research done on the dangers of these chemicals to the body. There has been little research done on the dangers of these chemicals, especially Oxybenzone, and when there are studies done they often show that most all of the chemicals cause debilitating effects on people’s health and wellbeing. Recent research published in Reproductive Toxicology stated that, “The study found a link between oxybenzone—an organic compound used in chemical sunscreens which turn UV rays into heat and then release it from the body—and a birth defect called Hirschsprung's disease.”(Travers, 2). Oxybenzone has been proven to cause many adverse health effects from low fertility in adults to surgery requiring diseases in children and fetuses. While the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) has told citizens to continue to use sunscreen until further research has shown negative repercussions, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has warned parents not to use sunscreen containing Oxybenzone on their children making it very confusing for the public to know what the right action is. While Oxybenzone is by far the worst chemical ingredient in sunscreen it is not the only one that has been found to cause serious damage to people. Avobenzone has been shown, along with Oxybenzone and a couple of other commonly used chemicals in sunscreen, that it can cause hormone disruption and even cancers that it is meant to stop. With the current reports that sunscreen is possibly causing more health problems than benefits, it is much too risky to continue the sale of these products to the public and especially children; as sunscreen is an over the counter drug meaning anyone can buy it without any prescription.
Conclusion
It is clear from the many studies done on chemical sunscreens that it is far too dangerous to marine environments and people for its continued use throughout the world. Coral reefs around the world are dying from people’s use of chemical sunscreens and if nothing is done very soon to stop this it will be too late. In fact, sunscreen will do more damage than just ruining an ecosystem. It will destroy countries' economies, coastal landscape, and cause food shortages around coastal regions. While there have been many health issues that have already been linked to chemical sunscreens there has only been a small amount of research done, meaning that it is very likely that with more testing scientists will find a plethora more problems directly connected to the use of sunscreens. In all, chemical sunscreen has been shown in multiple aspects, from the destruction of the social construction of nature to the many risks and hazards, that it is a product that needs to be changed massively or banned completely; I believe banning chemical sunscreens is the only option. In fact, people could easily switch over to using only physical sunscreen that does not hurt people or the environment with the only downside being that there will be a lite white coating on the surface of your skin. Overall, unless many more countries ban the sale and use of chemical sunscreen or the FDA comes out with evidence that verifiably shows that the dangers of using chemical sunscreen much outway the benefits, then it will be up to the public and government agencies to change the sunscreen industries’ impact on public and environmental health.
Work Cited
Bellis, Mary. "A History of Sunscreen." ThoughtCo, 23 Nov. 2019, https://thoughtco.com/suncreen-history-1992440.
Consumer Reports. “What You Need to Know about the Chemicals in Your Sunscreen.” The Washington Post, 17 June 2019,www.washingtonpost.com/health/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-chemicals-in-your sunscreen/2019/06/14/3840042c-8ca3-11e9-adf3-f70f78c156e8_story.html.
Goodman, Brenda. “FDA Sunscreen Report Raises Concern Over Chemicals.” WebMD, 21 Jan. 2020, www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/news/20200121/fda-skin-absorbs-dangerous-sunscreen-chemicals.
Kelly. “The History of Sunscreen.” The Block Island Organics , 6 April 2016, www.blockislandorganics.com/Blog/post/2016/04/06/The-History-of-Sunscreen.aspx.
Robbins, Paul, et al. Environment and Society : A Critical Introduction, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/humboldt/detail.action?docID=1582846.
“The Truth about Sunscreen: Its Effects on Us and the Environment.” Morro Bay National Estuary Program, 14 June 2019, www.mbnep.org/2019/06/11/the-truth-about-sunscreen-its-effects-on-us-and-the-environment/.
Travers, Colleen. “Using Chemical Sunscreen During Pregnancy May Cause a Rare Birth Defect.” Parents, 8 Apr. 2019, www.parents.com/news/using-chemical-sunscreen-during-pregnancy-may-cause-a-rare-birth-defect/.
Xu, Vicky Xiuzhong. “Palau Bans Many Kinds of Sunscreen, Citing Threat to Coral.” The New York Times, 2 Nov. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/11/02/world/asia/palau-sunscreen-ban-coral.html.
Introduction
Every day millions of people apply sunscreen in order to protect their skin from the harmful rays of the sun, but at what cost to their and the environment’s health. In recent years people have questioned whether sunscreen should continue to be allowed to be sold due to the devastating effects it has on the environment and the possible medical repercussions that it may have. In fact, The New York Times showed that the damage sunscreen causes to the environment is so great that it has caused some countries to outright ban the product such as, “The Western Pacific nation of Palau has become the first country to ban many kinds of sunscreen, in a move to protect its coral reefs from chemicals that scientists say cause significant damage.”(Xu, 1). A multitude of studies done in the past decade have determined that sunscreen is extremely dangerous to the environment as it has been killing coral reefs and many other species of marine life. It is important to note that not all types of sunscreen are bad for the environment, or for people; as a matter of fact it is only chemical sunscreen that causes these issues. Physical sunscreens have been tested many times and the results have consistently shown that it causes no harm to both the environment and people. The main issue with chemical sunscreen to people is that almost all of the different chemicals have been proven to soak into the skin of those who use the product. The Washington Post has reported that, “Some experts are concerned that these chemicals may be absorbed through the skin, leading to skin irritation, hormonal disruption — even skin cancer. The Food and Drug Administration recently called for more research on the safety and effectiveness of these chemicals.”(Consumer Reports, 3). Due to sunscreen being such an old product it was grandfathered in by the FDA and did not have to undergo rigorous testing as other drugs have. Therefore, the negative effects on people who use the product have not been extensively researched, making the recent claims that it can cause serious damage all the more worrying.
A Brief History of Sunscreen
The sun’s ultraviolet (UV) rays have been a problem for humans due to its potential to cause skin cancer and sunburns. While most of the types of sunscreen people use nowadays have only been invented in the last 100 years, ancient civilization had been using a variety of herbs to make their own forms of sunscreen/skin care for many centuries. In fact, The Block Island Organics pointed out that, “Egyptians, to prevent their skin from tanning, used a concoction of rice bran, jasmine and lupine. According to research today - rice bran can absorb UV light, jasmine helps repair DNA and lupine lightens skin. Ancient Greeks employed olive oil for sun protection and Native Americans used a type of pine needle to soothe sunburns.”(Kelly, 3). Many of the ingredients used by early civilizations are still found today in sunscreen products around the world. Humans around the world have been trying to prevent the damaging effects of the sun for thousands of years with varying types of plant extracts, but it wasn’t until the late 1930’s that a tested method for skin cancer and sunburns caused by the sun had been invented. ThoughtCo. described when the first sunscreen with an actual protection factor was invented, “In 1938, an Austrian chemist named Franz Greiter invented one of the first big sunscreen products. Greiter's sunscreen was called "Gletscher Crème" or "Glacier Cream" and had a sun protection factor (SPF) of two.”(Bellis, 5). An SPF of two means that it takes twice as long for your skin to burn in the same intensity of sunlight. With the increased use of sunscreens, Greiter decided to create a standardized method of rating the strength and effectiveness of sunscreens by the invention of the SPF rating system. It can be used to help people determine the correct sunscreen for their particular skin. Sadly, the sunscreen products that gained the most widespread use were chemical sunscreens because they did not leave a colored layer over your skin, often seen as white, as physical sunscreens do. Physical sunscreens are similar to chemical sunscreen in how they protect against the sun’s rays, but their main ingredients, the minerals zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, have shown to be GRASE (generally recognized as safe and effective). Currently there are seventeen FDA approved UV filters that are used in sunscreens with fifteen of them are being chemical and the remaining two being mineral. Of the fifteen chemical ingredients used in sunscreen products there is insufficient data for them to currently be considered GRASE.
Lens/Framework 1: Social Construction of Nature
In the textbook 'Environment and Society’ it is shown that mankind has an extremely destructive relationship with nature; often continuing practices that lead to the downfall of environments. This is especially true with how people have dealt with the rapid destruction of coral reefs caused by sunscreen products. Most chemical sunscreen is a mixture of about 12 different chemicals that block harmful UVA and UVB rays from absorbing as quickly into the skin. The most dangerous of these chemicals is Oxybenzone which has been shown repeatedly that it kills many different kinds of marine life, and coral reefs are among the most affected. After extensive research The Morro Bay National Estuary Program determined that, “Oxybenzone acts as a genotoxicant to coral reefs, meaning that it damages the corals’ DNA. This damage ultimately kills the corals’ offspring, also known as planulae. The chemical does this by disrupting the skeletal endocrine of each planula, which essentially makes the planula encase itself in its own bone structure and die.”(MBNEP, 9). Oxybenzone is still a chemical component of almost all chemical sunscreen even after multiple studies have shown that it is a genotoxicant for coral, meaning that it causes deadly mutations at the genic level of coral. It also affects the algae around the coral causing impairment in growth and photosynthesis, eventually killing off the necessary algae. Additionally, it has also been proven to kill many other species of marine life such as fish, sea urchins, muscles, and even many mammals like dolphins.
If something is not done very soon in regards to the dangers of ingredients in chemical sunscreen then many types of marine life and entire ecosystems will be destroyed. Coral reefs continue to be affected by toxic chemicals as they have for the past decades, so it is only a matter of time until they are no longer able to reproduce and the entire ecosystem will fall apart, causing permanent damage to more than just the coral and marine species in the immediate vicinity. This is due to coral reefs having more benefits than just being an ecosystem, which is already important enough, they also provide for humans just about as much as they do animals. In fact, Coral reefs are one of the biggest natural protectors of coastline erosion and flooding and with them gone many small islands and a lot of coastlines will disappear. Additionally, due to the coral being bleached from the toxic chemicals many countries' tourism industries will be completely ruined, therefore developing countries and small island countries will have massive job loss along with no monetary way to fix the problem. It will also cause food shortages in coastal regions and health industries will lose many life saving drugs produced from coral and the species that live there. Lastly, it is very important to remember that however insignificant a species might appear to be once it is eliminated from a region or goes extinct it will severely impact the natural food chains causing even more marine and land species to fall in numbers.
Lens/Framework 2: Risks and Hazards
While sunscreen effects on the social construction of nature are reason alone to outlaw the product, it also poses just as great a risk and hazard to the health of people. The main issue caused only by chemical sunscreens is that the many chemicals used are actually leaching into people’s bloodstream. A new study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association determined that, “It shows that the six active ingredients tested were absorbed into the body. Some continued to be elevated beyond the FDA’s threshold of concern for 3 weeks after the people in the study stopped putting them on their skin. For example, blood concentrations of oxybenzone were more than 180 times the FDA’s level of concern after a single application of sunscreen.”(WebMD, 22). This data is extremely concerning as tests have only recently been done on how much of these chemicals absorb into a person’s system and they have shown to be hundreds of times more than the allowed amount by the FDA. The fact that these chemicals are over 180 times the allotted amount after just one application and that they stay in someone's system for many weeks has shown that there needs to be much more extensive research done on the dangers of these chemicals to the body. There has been little research done on the dangers of these chemicals, especially Oxybenzone, and when there are studies done they often show that most all of the chemicals cause debilitating effects on people’s health and wellbeing. Recent research published in Reproductive Toxicology stated that, “The study found a link between oxybenzone—an organic compound used in chemical sunscreens which turn UV rays into heat and then release it from the body—and a birth defect called Hirschsprung's disease.”(Travers, 2). Oxybenzone has been proven to cause many adverse health effects from low fertility in adults to surgery requiring diseases in children and fetuses. While the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) has told citizens to continue to use sunscreen until further research has shown negative repercussions, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has warned parents not to use sunscreen containing Oxybenzone on their children making it very confusing for the public to know what the right action is. While Oxybenzone is by far the worst chemical ingredient in sunscreen it is not the only one that has been found to cause serious damage to people. Avobenzone has been shown, along with Oxybenzone and a couple of other commonly used chemicals in sunscreen, that it can cause hormone disruption and even cancers that it is meant to stop. With the current reports that sunscreen is possibly causing more health problems than benefits, it is much too risky to continue the sale of these products to the public and especially children; as sunscreen is an over the counter drug meaning anyone can buy it without any prescription.
Conclusion
It is clear from the many studies done on chemical sunscreens that it is far too dangerous to marine environments and people for its continued use throughout the world. Coral reefs around the world are dying from people’s use of chemical sunscreens and if nothing is done very soon to stop this it will be too late. In fact, sunscreen will do more damage than just ruining an ecosystem. It will destroy countries' economies, coastal landscape, and cause food shortages around coastal regions. While there have been many health issues that have already been linked to chemical sunscreens there has only been a small amount of research done, meaning that it is very likely that with more testing scientists will find a plethora more problems directly connected to the use of sunscreens. In all, chemical sunscreen has been shown in multiple aspects, from the destruction of the social construction of nature to the many risks and hazards, that it is a product that needs to be changed massively or banned completely; I believe banning chemical sunscreens is the only option. In fact, people could easily switch over to using only physical sunscreen that does not hurt people or the environment with the only downside being that there will be a lite white coating on the surface of your skin. Overall, unless many more countries ban the sale and use of chemical sunscreen or the FDA comes out with evidence that verifiably shows that the dangers of using chemical sunscreen much outway the benefits, then it will be up to the public and government agencies to change the sunscreen industries’ impact on public and environmental health.
Work Cited
Bellis, Mary. "A History of Sunscreen." ThoughtCo, 23 Nov. 2019, https://thoughtco.com/suncreen-history-1992440.
Consumer Reports. “What You Need to Know about the Chemicals in Your Sunscreen.” The Washington Post, 17 June 2019,www.washingtonpost.com/health/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-chemicals-in-your sunscreen/2019/06/14/3840042c-8ca3-11e9-adf3-f70f78c156e8_story.html.
Goodman, Brenda. “FDA Sunscreen Report Raises Concern Over Chemicals.” WebMD, 21 Jan. 2020, www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/news/20200121/fda-skin-absorbs-dangerous-sunscreen-chemicals.
Kelly. “The History of Sunscreen.” The Block Island Organics , 6 April 2016, www.blockislandorganics.com/Blog/post/2016/04/06/The-History-of-Sunscreen.aspx.
Robbins, Paul, et al. Environment and Society : A Critical Introduction, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/humboldt/detail.action?docID=1582846.
“The Truth about Sunscreen: Its Effects on Us and the Environment.” Morro Bay National Estuary Program, 14 June 2019, www.mbnep.org/2019/06/11/the-truth-about-sunscreen-its-effects-on-us-and-the-environment/.
Travers, Colleen. “Using Chemical Sunscreen During Pregnancy May Cause a Rare Birth Defect.” Parents, 8 Apr. 2019, www.parents.com/news/using-chemical-sunscreen-during-pregnancy-may-cause-a-rare-birth-defect/.
Xu, Vicky Xiuzhong. “Palau Bans Many Kinds of Sunscreen, Citing Threat to Coral.” The New York Times, 2 Nov. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/11/02/world/asia/palau-sunscreen-ban-coral.html.
Object of Concern: Agriculture
Introduction: Within a capitalistic society, this logical sense that says producing in large quantities is the most productive and efficient way to produce goods is prominent and has been applied to the way that food is being produced. Gifford Pinchot, a well known figure within environmental conservation who was appointed to the federal Division of Forestry in the 40’s was famous for the phrase; “greatest good for the greatest number.” (Robbins 70) This phrase exemplifies the capitalistic ideals associated with environmental ethics. Agriculture lies in the heart of society and the sustainability of agriculture is therefore extremely important for the well-being of society. Societies motivation to sustainably produce is directly related to perspectives involving environmental ethics and ecology; our relationship to the environment around us. A capitalist society has led us to believe that the mass production of goods is the most efficient way to produce goods. The validity of this idea has been put to question through its counterproductive effects on the environment and society.
A Short History: Since World War II, agricultural practices have changed dramatically due to the introduction of technology, mechanics, specialization, increased use of chemicals, and government policies that favor mass production. These changes have decreased the number of farms and labor demand. (Doval) The National Agricultural Library posted a comparison chart of farms in 1860 to farms in 2010. The chart shows that the number of farms has remained relatively the same while the acreage per farm has increased by 110%. The labor force within agriculture has gone down by 86%. Modern day agriculture involves the use of chemicals, genetically modified organisms, producing monoculture crops, overproducing, clearing natural vegetation, buying manufactured fertilizers, and using unsustainable technology. These agricultural practices have led to the depletion of the soil and its biodiversity.
Social Construction of Nature: Capitalism has not provided an incentive to preserve the environment, instead capitalism has promoted profit-maximization motif which provides incentives for entrepreneurs to increase productivity on a large scale to optimize profit. (Movahed) The most prevalent form of farming is through the use of plantations which are large scale farms that primarily grow perennial crops in a one crop system. (Kuhnen) This capitalistic idea has caused massive deforestation, water scarcities, biodiversity loss, soil depletion and high levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Large scale farmers practicing unsustainable agriculture are driving small local farmers practicing sustainable agriculture out of business. Traditional scientific understanding of nature has prided itself on objectivity and an external relationship to nature. (Robbins) Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction discusses this idea of the ‘wilderness’ which is a word or construct that we have invented to describe nature that implies that it is separate from us and savage at that. The wilderness is a construct that we invented and the word in and of itself shows what our relationship to nature is like. This social construction of our perspectives on nature has been created through this separation of ourselves from nature.We see nature as a different entity than humans which has created a major boundary between us and our environment. Globalization which has been promoted by capitalism has contributed to this separation from our environment by creating physical distance between us and our food. Over 1000 Americans were surveyed revealing that 48% of Americans do not seek to find out where their food comes from or how it is produced. (Kirshenbaum) Being so separated from our food makes it more difficult to care about how it’s being produced and how that production is affecting the world around us. Agroecology is in emergence and represents a form of agriculture that brings humans closer to the land. Agroecology is “an integrated approach that simultaneously applies ecological and social concepts and principles to the design and management of food and agricultural systems.” (The 10 elements of Agroecology) The goal of agroecology is essentially the opposite of capitalist ecology; it essentially says that increasing diversity within the soil provides nutrients without human intervention. This idea is known as intercropping which combines complementary species to increase spatial diversity. Modern day farming techniques involve clearing natural vegetation to make room to plant one single crop which strips the soil of nutrients and promotes erosion. These farming practices show that the social construct of nature that we have created has convinced us that we have to intervene in order to produce in a productive manner. Our social construct of nature tells us to turn toward human intervention before turning to the land. Agroecology thinks about agriculture in a way that analyzes ways that we can use natural processes to create ecosystems that conveniently work together to achieve productivity. On a similar note, In Our Hands: A Documentary Series about People Regenerating Their Lives & The Earth (2020) discusses the need for a shift back into ecological agriculture; a movement. Ecological farming involves protecting the soil, water and climate while promoting biodiversity and avoiding chemical inputs or genetic engineering. The documentary explains that ecological farming is hard work but that nurturing Mother Earth provides benefits that make the work well worth it. As Juan Manuel Martinez Valdez said in the documentary, “We shouldn’t take from Mother Earth without giving in return.” Something as simple as turning the soil to prompt more organic matter to develop is considered giving back to the environment.
Environmental Ethics: Western philosophies have studied questions of right and wrong that have been largely centered around actions of people toward other people. (Robbins) Ethics has only recently been taken into consideration when discussing the environment. According to John Locke and many other political libertarians, the government should play a limited role that functions only to protect the natural rights of citizens. (Robbins) This meant protecting property which was defined to be land that was made useful through human adjustments. This is an example of the perspective that forces people to believe that the land is only valuable if we give it value. One of the most defining environmental debates over the building of a reservoir in the Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite by San Francisco in order to create a permanent water source for the city. John Muir argued that the area should be preserved as “it was a storehouse of scenic wonder, a place of weary for modern humans to witness the spiritual grandeur of the natural world, a place not dedicated to human progress.” (Robbins 71) For Gifford Pinchot, on the other hand, there was no thought required; building the reservoir provided the greatest benefit for the most people and for him that was all that needed to be considered. Pinchot’s most famous aphorism, “greatest good for the greatest number” exemplifies the ideals that many hold which is that human benefit is the top priority. These ethics regarding the environment that are held by many have a direct effect on the way that we choose to use the land around us. The article Tasting Sunlight by Kalyanee Mam discusses the “bountiful food this rich land” of Areng Valley produces. The people of this land respect and revere the land and forests, but during the Khmer Rouge period an influx of new people interested in exploiting the land for timber and farmland arrived. Trees near the village were cut down and replaced by pastures where cows polluted the land with their dung taking away from the sacred richness of the land. This forced Cambodia into a free market economy based on exploitation of the land and as the article put it, “once the land and forests are no longer respected and revered, it became possible to cut down more trees and destroy more lands and forests.” This is an example of how environmental ethics affects agriculture and therefore affects the economy which is what makes a society. Ethics is in large part a contributing factor to the way that we have chosen to view the environment. We have made the choice to separate ourselves from the environment and think in a way that shows us what the environment can do for us but not what we can do for the environment. Ethics should most definitely be considered when discussing agricultural practices for the sake of both humans and the environment. A quote from Leopold in 1949, “a thing is right if it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community.”
Conclusion: A capitalist society has built the framework for production and has shaped our environment and economy. Mass production gained popularity after World War II where it became the chief way to produce. Over the years we have exploited and abused the world’s resources, taking for granted all that it gives to us and as a result are in a position where reform is absolutely necessary for our survival. Society’s perspective and expectations regarding agriculture are beginning to shift toward concerns about protecting the soil and its biodiversity, mitigating climate change, and producing alternative energy sources. Our perspectives involving nature and our role as contributing members within nature has shifted into a more ecological approach. We are beginning a shift toward natural remedies which has become necessary.
Works Cited
Doval, Calvin. “What Is Sustainable Agriculture?” Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program, December 11, 2018. https://sarep.ucdavis.edu/sustainable-ag. Kuhnen, Frithjof. Man and Land: An Introduction into the Problems of Agrarian Structure and Agrarian Reform. Saarbrücken: Breitenbach, 1982. Robbins, Paul, John Hintz, and Sarah A. Moore. Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction. Hoboken, UNITED KINGDOM: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/humboldt/detail.action?docID=1582846. “Agriculture Then and Now | National Agricultural Library.” Accessed December 16, 2020. https://www.nal.usda.gov/topics/agriculture-then-and-now. “10 Elements | Agroecology Knowledge Hub | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.” Accessed December 16, 2020. http://www.fao.org/agroecology/knowledge/10-elements/en/. In Our Hands: A Documentary Series about People Regenerating Their Lives & The Earth (2020). Accessed December 16, 2020. https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/in-our-hands-en-nuestras-manos/. World Economic Forum. “Does Capitalism Have to Be Bad for the Environment?” Accessed December 16, 2020. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/02/does-capitalism-have-to-be-bad-for-the-environment/. Alliance for Science. “Americans Are Confused about Food and Unsure Where to Turn for Answers, Study Shows.” Accessed December 16, 2020. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/03/americans-confused-food-unsure-turn-answers/. Citizens of Earth. “Unsustainable Agriculture.” Accessed December 16, 2020. https://www.thecitizensofearth.org/unearthing-our-roots.
Rowan Farrell
GEOG 300
Object of Concern Paper
Introduction:
Fashion has been a part of our culture and how one expresses themselves for decades. Fashion goes into first impressions, blends with our individual personalities, and helps boost confidence. Despite how postitive fashion can be, however, there has been an increase in the societal norm of staying relevant through one’s clothing choices and judgement if trends aren’t followed. These ideas are fueled by mainstream culture, which likes to stay on top of trends, and fast fashion, which helps the average consumer feel like their favorite influencer without breaking the bank or having to wait ages for a look to be released. Fast fashion, which is an industry that samples ideas from the latest catwalk and celebrity trends and turns them into mass produced and affordable clothes as quick as possible, has changed the fashion industry forever (Fashionista). However, this seemingly great method of buying textiles at low costs and supplying to the masses is not a sustainable system, as clothes made by fast fashion brands are only made to last as long as the trend does. According to Good on You, the whole idea behind fast fashion is to get the newest styles on the market as fast as possible, so shoppers can snap them up while they are still at the height of their popularity, and then, sadly, discard them after a few wears. Aside from its wasteful intent, fashion production makes up 10% of humanity’s carbon emssions, more than “all international flights and maritime shipping combined”, and if fast fashion continues on its current trajectory, the UN predicts that these emissions could rise 60% by 2030 (Business Insider & The United Nations).
A Brief History of Fast Fashion
Fashion first really emerged during the Industrial Revolution with the introduction of the sewing machine. Before that, clothes took much longer to make because they were hand woven with materials like sheep’s wool and leather, so not much thought was given to how the clothes looked or how other people would think about them, with the exception of the upper class. With the sewing machine came textile factories and bulk clothing produced in different sizes, resulting in a massive price drop for fashion pieces and a wider range of people being able to purchase them (Fashionista). Fast fashion, however, didn’t really emerge until the 1960s in Europe with the success of brands such as Zara, H&M, and TopShop. These brands, who are still top of their industry, came as a result of increased demand for affordable clothing that followed the trends, being able to do so through cost cutting measures such as using cheap fabrics, outsourcing labor to developing countries overseas, and underpaying employees (Good on You). The popularity of these brands and their cheap, high-fashion looking clothes spread worldwide and were soon opening stores in America, which was then followed by Americans starting their own brands such as Express, Forever 21, and American Eagle. Though the norm of these times was to purchase items from either department stores or from the hands of dressmakers, these were pricey options and took a long time to produce, so there was an increasing acceptability to wear low-cost fashion that allowed these newcomer brands to gain traction so quick, with the New York Times even stating in 2000 that it was now “chic to pay less” (Fashionista).
Today, we see clothing much differently. Gone are the days of flipping through catalogs and saving up to buy a chic fur coat from a top name brand, as we can now purchase a dupe of a clothing item on our phones mere hours after it has been debuted on the runway. Design and production usually takes a few months to hit the market after debuting at a show, but fast fashion takes that aspect away, and due to its popularity, other designers are starting to increase their work speed as well. The mainstream expectation today is to have a closet overflowing with garments that show a preference of quantity over quality. In fact, due to the popularity of the fast fashion model that creates clothes not made to last, the average American now generates 82 pounds of textile waste each year (The True Cost). One day, maybe even soon, fast fashion will be the dominating method of purchasing clothes despite its unsustainable nature.
An Economical Perspective
From an economical perspective, fast fashion is a great moneymaker and a perfect industry model. There’s more consumer spending and less money being spent on fabrics and labor, therefore leading to more profits for the company. The consumers also get to win in this situation, as more people are able to wear what they just saw their favorite celebrity or influencer flaunt on Instagram with exact links to where their budget-friendly outfits or dupes are from. According to Earth.org, this system works because, unlike the seasonal lines that other fashion brands put out, fast fashion brands have about 52 “micro-seasons” per year, churning out new items all the time and enough products to apply to any demographic. The streamlined system involves “rapid design, production, distributing and marketing” (Earth.org), meaning that retailers are able to get less amounts of a greater variety of products and consumers are able to add more fashion pieces to their closets at low prices. While the model works for retailers, designers, and consumers, the fast fashion industry is also valued for its contribution to the economy. For example, the overall fashion industry in the UK rose to a record 32 billion pounds last year (Evening Standard) with the spike in fast fashion purchases.
For more perspective on the efficiency difference between fast fashion and conventional design, the lead time (the amount of time it takes for a product to go from design to purchase) for high quality brands can take up to 50 weeks. Meanwhile, brands like Zara and Forever 21 are able to design, produce, and deliver new pieces in as little as two weeks (Earth.org). This difference and pressure in demand is causing fashion brands from all over the world to rethink their models, as consumers are showing to be much more willing to buy a low quality dupe at a cheaper price and quicker rate than waiting weeks for a high priced garment from a well-known brand, even though those pieces would last a lot longer due to the quality difference. The typical lead time of 50 weeks can also be detrimental to those companies, as trends change fast and can lead to markdowns as soon as their products hit the market due to the shift from one big trend to another within that time. Even CEOs of big brands, like Jenny Holloway for Fashion Enter, agree that fast fashion is better, as for them, it means “reducing the quantities retailers are buying and selling all of those clothes at full price” rather than having to mark them down if items are taking longer to sell out, typical of a seasonal line (The Manufacturer). For them, fast fashion models are the ones to be following and mimicking despite those brands using lower quality materials and cheap labor in order to achieve what they do.
Fast Fashion and Environmental Ethics
Unfortunately, the low monetary price of these garments comes at a high price to the planet. Not only is the clothing made by fast fashion brands made to be disposed, but the pollution and emissions that are created through production are dangerously high and expected to climb even higher as fast fashion continues to be in high demand. According to the documentary The True Cost, the world consumes about 80 billion new pieces of clothing each year, 400% more than in 1995, even though they keep the clothes for half as long. So, where do these clothes go when the consumer disposes of it? The dump! While it may be assumed that many people hold onto their clothes in hopes that the trends they belong to make a comeback, 85% of textiles made each year end up in landfills, which is the equivalent to one garbage truck full of clothes being burnt or dumped each second (Business Insider). Much of this disposal is due to the low quality of the clothes, as they’re made with synthetic fibers such as polyester, nylon, and acrylic that are very energy intensive to produce and use large amounts of petroleum. These synthetic fibers have a number of problems associated with them, both in production and after disposal. For example, polyester production releases up to triple the amount of carbon emissions than cotton does, and all the synthetic fibers listed take hundreds of years to biodegrade, with many of their pieces ending up in the ocean (Earth.org). In fact, the IUCN reported in 2017 that micro plastics produced from the laundering of synthetic textiles made up 35% of all the microplastics in the ocean (Business Insider).
Another key piece to making these clothes is water. According to Business Insider, the fashion industry is the second-largest consumer of water worldwide, as it takes about 700 gallons to produce one shirt, and 2,000 gallons for a pair of jeans. However, fast fashion is second place not only for consuming the substance, but polluting it as well. Textile dyeing, which gives clothes their color through an aqueous process, has earned the fashion industry the title of the world’s second largest polluter of water as leftovers from the dyeing process is dumped into rivers and streams (Business Insider). As a whole, this intensive process makes up 36% of the industry’s global pollution (Earth.org).
Labor is another vital part of why fast fashion is able to produce clothing as fast as it does. In fact, “one in six people work in some part of the global fashion industry, making it the most labor dependent industry” (The True Cost). However, not all of this labor is ethical. A 2018 report from the US Department of Labor found evidence of forced and child labor in the fashion industry in many countries including Argentina, Brazil, China, and the Philippines (Earth.org).
To effectively combat a system that uses a handful of harmful tactics, of course, is to change them. On the consumer side, Environment and Society notes that efforts at conservation from brands “are driven not by altruism or green sensibilities, but rather by a simple response to market forces”. One way that consumers are starting to reduce their direct purchases from fast fashion brands but still getting their fix of the trends is through buying from secondhand sellers from apps such as Poshmark or Depop. People are also increasingly looking for clothes made with sustainable fabrics such as wild silk, organic cotton, hemp, and lyocell (Earth.org). From the production side, The World Resources Institue suggests that companies need to “design, test, and invest in business models that reuse clothes and maximize their useful life”. One way to do this would be to impose the market-based solutions listed in table 3.1 of Environment and Society such as green taxes, which are said to have “greatly increased recyclying and more careful attention by consumers to packaging and waste”.
Conclusion
On one hand, the fast fashion industry has been a game changer for brands, allowing them to pump out a plethora of textiles in less time for less cost, while reaping great benefits from consumer spending. On the other hand, the fast fashion industry is continually and increasingly wreaking havoc on the environment through their unsustainable methods. While consumers can choose to switch to clothes that are more eco-friendly or second-hand, the fate of fast fashion really lies in the hands of these name brands who are going to have a customer base no matter what. They need to be called out and held accountable for their damaging model and make it so reusable and sustainable is the forever trend. Fashion and how one looks will always be part of our society, but making sustainable choices when it comes to what we wear will really seal the fate of how fashion impacts our planet.
Works Cited
“Fashion Industry, UN Pursue Climate Action for Sustainable Development.” Unfccc.int, Jan. 2018, unfccc.int/news/fashion-industry-un-pursue-climate-action-for-sustainable- development.
Idacavage, Sara. “Fashion History Lesson: The Origins of Fast Fashion.” Fashionista, Fashionista, 8 June 2016, fashionista.com/2016/06/what-is-fast-fashion.
Maiti, Rashmila. “Fast Fashion: Its Detrimental Effect on the Environment: Earth.Org - Past: Present: Future.” Earth.Org - Past | Present | Future, 13 Aug. 2020, earth.org/fast-fashions-detrimental-effect-on-the-environment/.
“Markets and Commodities .” Environment and Society: a Critical Introduction, by Paul Robbins et al., John Wiley Et Sons, Inc, 2014, pp. 31–48.
McFall-Johnsen, Morgan. “The Fashion Industry Emits More Carbon than International Flights and Maritime Shipping Combined. Here Are the Biggest Ways It Impacts the Planet.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 21 Oct. 2019, www.businessinsider.com/fast-fashion-environmental-impact-pollution-emissions-waste-water-2019-10.
Morgan, Andrew, director. The True Cost. True Cost Movie, Life Is My Movie Entertainment, 2015, truecostmovie.com.
Rautureir, Solene. “What Is Fast Fashion?” Good On You, 18 Nov. 2020, goodonyou.eco/what-is-fast-fashion/.
Sleigh, Sophia. “The UK Fashion Industry Is Now Worth £32 Billion to the UK Economy.” London Evening Standard | Evening Standard, Evening Standard, 13 Sept. 2018, www.standard.co.uk/insider/fashion/uk-fashion-industry-ps32-billion-uk-economy-british-fashion-council-caroline-rush-a3934781.html.
White, Maddy. “Fast Fashion Is Getting Faster and That's a Good Thing.” The Manufacturer, 10 May 2019, www.themanufacturer.com/articles/fast-fashion-getting-faster-thats-good-thing/.
GEOG 300
Object of Concern Paper
Introduction:
Fashion has been a part of our culture and how one expresses themselves for decades. Fashion goes into first impressions, blends with our individual personalities, and helps boost confidence. Despite how postitive fashion can be, however, there has been an increase in the societal norm of staying relevant through one’s clothing choices and judgement if trends aren’t followed. These ideas are fueled by mainstream culture, which likes to stay on top of trends, and fast fashion, which helps the average consumer feel like their favorite influencer without breaking the bank or having to wait ages for a look to be released. Fast fashion, which is an industry that samples ideas from the latest catwalk and celebrity trends and turns them into mass produced and affordable clothes as quick as possible, has changed the fashion industry forever (Fashionista). However, this seemingly great method of buying textiles at low costs and supplying to the masses is not a sustainable system, as clothes made by fast fashion brands are only made to last as long as the trend does. According to Good on You, the whole idea behind fast fashion is to get the newest styles on the market as fast as possible, so shoppers can snap them up while they are still at the height of their popularity, and then, sadly, discard them after a few wears. Aside from its wasteful intent, fashion production makes up 10% of humanity’s carbon emssions, more than “all international flights and maritime shipping combined”, and if fast fashion continues on its current trajectory, the UN predicts that these emissions could rise 60% by 2030 (Business Insider & The United Nations).
A Brief History of Fast Fashion
Fashion first really emerged during the Industrial Revolution with the introduction of the sewing machine. Before that, clothes took much longer to make because they were hand woven with materials like sheep’s wool and leather, so not much thought was given to how the clothes looked or how other people would think about them, with the exception of the upper class. With the sewing machine came textile factories and bulk clothing produced in different sizes, resulting in a massive price drop for fashion pieces and a wider range of people being able to purchase them (Fashionista). Fast fashion, however, didn’t really emerge until the 1960s in Europe with the success of brands such as Zara, H&M, and TopShop. These brands, who are still top of their industry, came as a result of increased demand for affordable clothing that followed the trends, being able to do so through cost cutting measures such as using cheap fabrics, outsourcing labor to developing countries overseas, and underpaying employees (Good on You). The popularity of these brands and their cheap, high-fashion looking clothes spread worldwide and were soon opening stores in America, which was then followed by Americans starting their own brands such as Express, Forever 21, and American Eagle. Though the norm of these times was to purchase items from either department stores or from the hands of dressmakers, these were pricey options and took a long time to produce, so there was an increasing acceptability to wear low-cost fashion that allowed these newcomer brands to gain traction so quick, with the New York Times even stating in 2000 that it was now “chic to pay less” (Fashionista).
Today, we see clothing much differently. Gone are the days of flipping through catalogs and saving up to buy a chic fur coat from a top name brand, as we can now purchase a dupe of a clothing item on our phones mere hours after it has been debuted on the runway. Design and production usually takes a few months to hit the market after debuting at a show, but fast fashion takes that aspect away, and due to its popularity, other designers are starting to increase their work speed as well. The mainstream expectation today is to have a closet overflowing with garments that show a preference of quantity over quality. In fact, due to the popularity of the fast fashion model that creates clothes not made to last, the average American now generates 82 pounds of textile waste each year (The True Cost). One day, maybe even soon, fast fashion will be the dominating method of purchasing clothes despite its unsustainable nature.
An Economical Perspective
From an economical perspective, fast fashion is a great moneymaker and a perfect industry model. There’s more consumer spending and less money being spent on fabrics and labor, therefore leading to more profits for the company. The consumers also get to win in this situation, as more people are able to wear what they just saw their favorite celebrity or influencer flaunt on Instagram with exact links to where their budget-friendly outfits or dupes are from. According to Earth.org, this system works because, unlike the seasonal lines that other fashion brands put out, fast fashion brands have about 52 “micro-seasons” per year, churning out new items all the time and enough products to apply to any demographic. The streamlined system involves “rapid design, production, distributing and marketing” (Earth.org), meaning that retailers are able to get less amounts of a greater variety of products and consumers are able to add more fashion pieces to their closets at low prices. While the model works for retailers, designers, and consumers, the fast fashion industry is also valued for its contribution to the economy. For example, the overall fashion industry in the UK rose to a record 32 billion pounds last year (Evening Standard) with the spike in fast fashion purchases.
For more perspective on the efficiency difference between fast fashion and conventional design, the lead time (the amount of time it takes for a product to go from design to purchase) for high quality brands can take up to 50 weeks. Meanwhile, brands like Zara and Forever 21 are able to design, produce, and deliver new pieces in as little as two weeks (Earth.org). This difference and pressure in demand is causing fashion brands from all over the world to rethink their models, as consumers are showing to be much more willing to buy a low quality dupe at a cheaper price and quicker rate than waiting weeks for a high priced garment from a well-known brand, even though those pieces would last a lot longer due to the quality difference. The typical lead time of 50 weeks can also be detrimental to those companies, as trends change fast and can lead to markdowns as soon as their products hit the market due to the shift from one big trend to another within that time. Even CEOs of big brands, like Jenny Holloway for Fashion Enter, agree that fast fashion is better, as for them, it means “reducing the quantities retailers are buying and selling all of those clothes at full price” rather than having to mark them down if items are taking longer to sell out, typical of a seasonal line (The Manufacturer). For them, fast fashion models are the ones to be following and mimicking despite those brands using lower quality materials and cheap labor in order to achieve what they do.
Fast Fashion and Environmental Ethics
Unfortunately, the low monetary price of these garments comes at a high price to the planet. Not only is the clothing made by fast fashion brands made to be disposed, but the pollution and emissions that are created through production are dangerously high and expected to climb even higher as fast fashion continues to be in high demand. According to the documentary The True Cost, the world consumes about 80 billion new pieces of clothing each year, 400% more than in 1995, even though they keep the clothes for half as long. So, where do these clothes go when the consumer disposes of it? The dump! While it may be assumed that many people hold onto their clothes in hopes that the trends they belong to make a comeback, 85% of textiles made each year end up in landfills, which is the equivalent to one garbage truck full of clothes being burnt or dumped each second (Business Insider). Much of this disposal is due to the low quality of the clothes, as they’re made with synthetic fibers such as polyester, nylon, and acrylic that are very energy intensive to produce and use large amounts of petroleum. These synthetic fibers have a number of problems associated with them, both in production and after disposal. For example, polyester production releases up to triple the amount of carbon emissions than cotton does, and all the synthetic fibers listed take hundreds of years to biodegrade, with many of their pieces ending up in the ocean (Earth.org). In fact, the IUCN reported in 2017 that micro plastics produced from the laundering of synthetic textiles made up 35% of all the microplastics in the ocean (Business Insider).
Another key piece to making these clothes is water. According to Business Insider, the fashion industry is the second-largest consumer of water worldwide, as it takes about 700 gallons to produce one shirt, and 2,000 gallons for a pair of jeans. However, fast fashion is second place not only for consuming the substance, but polluting it as well. Textile dyeing, which gives clothes their color through an aqueous process, has earned the fashion industry the title of the world’s second largest polluter of water as leftovers from the dyeing process is dumped into rivers and streams (Business Insider). As a whole, this intensive process makes up 36% of the industry’s global pollution (Earth.org).
Labor is another vital part of why fast fashion is able to produce clothing as fast as it does. In fact, “one in six people work in some part of the global fashion industry, making it the most labor dependent industry” (The True Cost). However, not all of this labor is ethical. A 2018 report from the US Department of Labor found evidence of forced and child labor in the fashion industry in many countries including Argentina, Brazil, China, and the Philippines (Earth.org).
To effectively combat a system that uses a handful of harmful tactics, of course, is to change them. On the consumer side, Environment and Society notes that efforts at conservation from brands “are driven not by altruism or green sensibilities, but rather by a simple response to market forces”. One way that consumers are starting to reduce their direct purchases from fast fashion brands but still getting their fix of the trends is through buying from secondhand sellers from apps such as Poshmark or Depop. People are also increasingly looking for clothes made with sustainable fabrics such as wild silk, organic cotton, hemp, and lyocell (Earth.org). From the production side, The World Resources Institue suggests that companies need to “design, test, and invest in business models that reuse clothes and maximize their useful life”. One way to do this would be to impose the market-based solutions listed in table 3.1 of Environment and Society such as green taxes, which are said to have “greatly increased recyclying and more careful attention by consumers to packaging and waste”.
Conclusion
On one hand, the fast fashion industry has been a game changer for brands, allowing them to pump out a plethora of textiles in less time for less cost, while reaping great benefits from consumer spending. On the other hand, the fast fashion industry is continually and increasingly wreaking havoc on the environment through their unsustainable methods. While consumers can choose to switch to clothes that are more eco-friendly or second-hand, the fate of fast fashion really lies in the hands of these name brands who are going to have a customer base no matter what. They need to be called out and held accountable for their damaging model and make it so reusable and sustainable is the forever trend. Fashion and how one looks will always be part of our society, but making sustainable choices when it comes to what we wear will really seal the fate of how fashion impacts our planet.
Works Cited
“Fashion Industry, UN Pursue Climate Action for Sustainable Development.” Unfccc.int, Jan. 2018, unfccc.int/news/fashion-industry-un-pursue-climate-action-for-sustainable- development.
Idacavage, Sara. “Fashion History Lesson: The Origins of Fast Fashion.” Fashionista, Fashionista, 8 June 2016, fashionista.com/2016/06/what-is-fast-fashion.
Maiti, Rashmila. “Fast Fashion: Its Detrimental Effect on the Environment: Earth.Org - Past: Present: Future.” Earth.Org - Past | Present | Future, 13 Aug. 2020, earth.org/fast-fashions-detrimental-effect-on-the-environment/.
“Markets and Commodities .” Environment and Society: a Critical Introduction, by Paul Robbins et al., John Wiley Et Sons, Inc, 2014, pp. 31–48.
McFall-Johnsen, Morgan. “The Fashion Industry Emits More Carbon than International Flights and Maritime Shipping Combined. Here Are the Biggest Ways It Impacts the Planet.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 21 Oct. 2019, www.businessinsider.com/fast-fashion-environmental-impact-pollution-emissions-waste-water-2019-10.
Morgan, Andrew, director. The True Cost. True Cost Movie, Life Is My Movie Entertainment, 2015, truecostmovie.com.
Rautureir, Solene. “What Is Fast Fashion?” Good On You, 18 Nov. 2020, goodonyou.eco/what-is-fast-fashion/.
Sleigh, Sophia. “The UK Fashion Industry Is Now Worth £32 Billion to the UK Economy.” London Evening Standard | Evening Standard, Evening Standard, 13 Sept. 2018, www.standard.co.uk/insider/fashion/uk-fashion-industry-ps32-billion-uk-economy-british-fashion-council-caroline-rush-a3934781.html.
White, Maddy. “Fast Fashion Is Getting Faster and That's a Good Thing.” The Manufacturer, 10 May 2019, www.themanufacturer.com/articles/fast-fashion-getting-faster-thats-good-thing/.
Otto Berndt
12/16/2020
Ski Resorts
Ski resorts have it all, from high-speed chairs to shuttle you quickly to the top of the mountain, to wide open perfect runs, to the restaurants, bars & lodging you require once the day’s over. To many, including myself, this is heaven. My home mountain, Alpine Meadows, is on the smaller side with only the essentials, yet still I question its impact on the environment and humanity. This pondering has led me to examine the ski resort industry, focusing specifically on the environmental ethics and construction of nature that intersect at such a place.
Skiing as a form of recreation and transport has been around since the early civilizations. Used as a tool, skiing was mainly found in arctic regions to move across snow much faster than feet. Since then, the sport has evolved into a many multibillion-dollar industry. The modern form of the resort reflects early operation only remotely. Their impact on the environment due to their sheer scale far out shadows low impact family operations of the century’s turn. From small “rope tows” which is a rope pulley system that a person grabs onto and is pulled up a natural clearing of the family operation. To the modern-day, massive, over 4000 feet of cable on 60-foot tall towers that require clear-cuts and artificial snow. To Mark the rise in popularity,” in the West and Midwest, where skier visits increased at an annual rate of 20% throughout much of the 1960s” current day, the popularity is not increasing at a noticeable rate yet there is a consistent basis of around 10 million riders in the us alone (Tenenbaum). What has changed however is the size and nature of the places which people ski “the American downhill ski industry has grown from a small number of crude rope toes to a high-volume, capital-intensive business” (Lovett). This truth has many implications that I will attempt to unpack through the lenses mentioned earlier, from the direct environmental impact to how our view of nature has changed due to these resorts.
Lens 1 - Environmental ethics
The massive resorts characteristic of the modern-day are home to many environmental atrocities. To begin with, the high Alpine environment of ski resorts are highly fragile ecosystems and are affected greatly by our actions. The resorts have three levels of impact, the initial, seasonal and long-term, Each of which I will explain with an example. The process of starting a ski resort is where we shall begin. Large investment firms gather resources behind a proposed location that has been selected for its unique snow bearing characteristics. The construction begins with the clearing of thousands of trees to make way for wide-open runs and ski lifts. The impacts are Beyond aesthetic and affect the functionality of the ecosystem for many years to come. “ski run creation can result in some of the most problematic and pervasive consequences of anthropogenic disturbance: erosion, nutrient leaching and sediment runoff.” (Roux-Fouillet, Philippe, et al.) These disturbances are slim compared to the disastrous consequences of slope grading for ski race tracks and a good number of frontside runs. “Soils on graded ski runs were nutrient-depleted to such an extent that recovery would not occur without active restoration” (Burt) being that over half of ski resorts on public land, it is appalling that we let this type of behavior go unchecked and it should be the responsibility of the resort to remediate and repair the ecosystems which they have shattered.
The seasonal impact comes mainly from snowmaking/moving/grooming and transportation and lodging in the resort area. I’m going to focus on the water usage and impact of artificial snowmaking. Most ski areas are capable of turning 2000 gallons of water to snow per minute, some mountains can produce exponentially higher amounts of snow. The early-season and late-season is when snowmaking is at its peak, these times, especially early, it is very hard on the river or stream ecosystem that relies heavily on the runoff from snowmelt. As climate change makes warmer winters, resorts are going to rely even more on snow making leaving even more ecosystems vulnerable to losing their lifeblood. This artificial snow behaves differently than normal snow because it is denser and contains considerably more minerals. This affects not only soil nutrients and river pollution but has profound consequences on the vegetation that occupies the slopes, making it harder for them to grow.
The long-term consequences are where I believe it is most clear the atrocious environmental ethics the industry holds. Development follows resorts. Each year more runs are carved out and houses built around the site. The water from streams and rivers is used to make snow. It is complete disregard that best characterizes this behavior. This brings up a term the textbook introduced “holism”, if something does not benefit the whole ecosystem don’t do it. Ski resorts benefit one, the human, over all else. This is best exemplified and a quote from Leopold “a thing as right when it tends to preserve the Integrity stability and beauty of the biotic community” (74) again, ski resorts fail the test, only serving the human and, in fact, trample many other members of the community.
Lens 2 - The Social Construct of Nature
The modern ski resort has altered the construct of nature through its vast manipulation of the landscape and seeming control over the seasons. With many visitors hoping to be immersed in a “pristine wilderness”, leave with a dangerous construction of nature and a misguided set of goals and understanding is typical. Due to the heavy landscape modification mentioned in the previous section, the construction of nature within a ski resort is far skewed from the relative state of the land. Humans gather a wide array of information from their landscape, this forms a social construction with which we base our assumptions and behavior on. One tool i found critically important to further thought was introduced by the text book: “Employing the notion of “discourse,” we can take this understanding further to explain how and why specific ideas of nature come to be normal, taken for granted, or inevitable, when they are not.” (Robbins) For example “piste” is a term to describe the marked trails down the mountain while “off-piste” refers to trails that are on unmarked and ungroomed terrain. As part of the discourse, these words are significant in shaping the way people view the mountain and the manipulated facets. Because the landscape and discourse is based off of a manipulated landscape, the actuality of problems and ecosystem health is obscured. This disconnect poses a threat not only to the ecosystems but the spaces of our minds that are so misguided. In fruition this could look like many things. But start with the snow, every inch is calculated to give the best skiing experience. On the front side especially, where snow cats push and groom snow to perfection. The snow makers begin their work long before the resort opens its doors, filling in the gaps that mother nature left bare. This perception of a pristine snow-covered Mountain can lead one to believe the season is normal and that the climate is fine when in reality, Winters are warming and snowfall decreasing due to climate change. 51% of resorts opened late and 49% closed early in 2011(Tilley), signs of the rough times to come.
Carving down the perfectly made corduroy on the perfect pitch on the perfect blue day, one is given the construction of a pristine slope. In reality this slope is the result of machine grading that will render that surface inhospitable to the biotic community for many years to come, possibly forever if not actively addressed. The varying results of the changes in the ecosystem are very long-term “unfortunately, environmental economist have not yet succeeded in evaluating many types of environmental Harms.” (Burt, et al) This means that the many millions of dollars the ski resort is pulling from the mountain will manifest itself as future costs to future generations, all things forgotten due to the meticulous construction resorts have made of nature.
Overall, the findings are clear. The environmental ethics of the ski resort industry are far out of alignment with the actualism of the situation. Their construct of nature that has been created threatens the Integrity of the skier conscience and that of the ecosystem itself. The resorts have many improvements to make surrounding their ethics and construction of nature if they want to continue to hold a place in the heart of the outdoors person, this change must occur now.
Robbins, Paul, John Hintz and Sarah A. Moore. Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, Chapters 5 and 8. (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014), accessed 16 Dec., 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Lovett, Richard A. “The Role of the Forest Service in Ski Resort Development: An Economic Approach To Public Lands Management.” Ecology Law Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 4, 1983, pp. 507–578. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24112640. Accessed 16 Dec. 2020.
Tenenbaum, David J. “Land Use. The Slippery Slope of Ski Expansion.” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 109, no. 3, 2001, pp. A112–A112. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3434674. Accessed 16 Dec. 2020.
“The Forest Service 2012 Directive: A Necessary Clarification in Ski Area Permit Act Water Rights Policy.” Tulane Environmental Law Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, 2013, pp. 287–312. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24673670. Accessed 16 Dec. 2020.
Burt, Jennifer W., and Kevin J. Rice. “Not All Ski Slopes Are Created Equal: Disturbance Intensity Affects Ecosystem Properties.” Ecological Applications, vol. 19, no. 8, 2009, pp. 2242–2253. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40346325. Accessed 16 Dec. 2020.
Roux-Fouillet, Philippe, et al. “Long-Term Impacts of Ski Piste Management on Alpine Vegetation and Soils.” Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 48, no. 4, 2011, pp. 906–915. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20870017. Accessed 16 Dec. 2020.
12/16/2020
Ski Resorts
Ski resorts have it all, from high-speed chairs to shuttle you quickly to the top of the mountain, to wide open perfect runs, to the restaurants, bars & lodging you require once the day’s over. To many, including myself, this is heaven. My home mountain, Alpine Meadows, is on the smaller side with only the essentials, yet still I question its impact on the environment and humanity. This pondering has led me to examine the ski resort industry, focusing specifically on the environmental ethics and construction of nature that intersect at such a place.
Skiing as a form of recreation and transport has been around since the early civilizations. Used as a tool, skiing was mainly found in arctic regions to move across snow much faster than feet. Since then, the sport has evolved into a many multibillion-dollar industry. The modern form of the resort reflects early operation only remotely. Their impact on the environment due to their sheer scale far out shadows low impact family operations of the century’s turn. From small “rope tows” which is a rope pulley system that a person grabs onto and is pulled up a natural clearing of the family operation. To the modern-day, massive, over 4000 feet of cable on 60-foot tall towers that require clear-cuts and artificial snow. To Mark the rise in popularity,” in the West and Midwest, where skier visits increased at an annual rate of 20% throughout much of the 1960s” current day, the popularity is not increasing at a noticeable rate yet there is a consistent basis of around 10 million riders in the us alone (Tenenbaum). What has changed however is the size and nature of the places which people ski “the American downhill ski industry has grown from a small number of crude rope toes to a high-volume, capital-intensive business” (Lovett). This truth has many implications that I will attempt to unpack through the lenses mentioned earlier, from the direct environmental impact to how our view of nature has changed due to these resorts.
Lens 1 - Environmental ethics
The massive resorts characteristic of the modern-day are home to many environmental atrocities. To begin with, the high Alpine environment of ski resorts are highly fragile ecosystems and are affected greatly by our actions. The resorts have three levels of impact, the initial, seasonal and long-term, Each of which I will explain with an example. The process of starting a ski resort is where we shall begin. Large investment firms gather resources behind a proposed location that has been selected for its unique snow bearing characteristics. The construction begins with the clearing of thousands of trees to make way for wide-open runs and ski lifts. The impacts are Beyond aesthetic and affect the functionality of the ecosystem for many years to come. “ski run creation can result in some of the most problematic and pervasive consequences of anthropogenic disturbance: erosion, nutrient leaching and sediment runoff.” (Roux-Fouillet, Philippe, et al.) These disturbances are slim compared to the disastrous consequences of slope grading for ski race tracks and a good number of frontside runs. “Soils on graded ski runs were nutrient-depleted to such an extent that recovery would not occur without active restoration” (Burt) being that over half of ski resorts on public land, it is appalling that we let this type of behavior go unchecked and it should be the responsibility of the resort to remediate and repair the ecosystems which they have shattered.
The seasonal impact comes mainly from snowmaking/moving/grooming and transportation and lodging in the resort area. I’m going to focus on the water usage and impact of artificial snowmaking. Most ski areas are capable of turning 2000 gallons of water to snow per minute, some mountains can produce exponentially higher amounts of snow. The early-season and late-season is when snowmaking is at its peak, these times, especially early, it is very hard on the river or stream ecosystem that relies heavily on the runoff from snowmelt. As climate change makes warmer winters, resorts are going to rely even more on snow making leaving even more ecosystems vulnerable to losing their lifeblood. This artificial snow behaves differently than normal snow because it is denser and contains considerably more minerals. This affects not only soil nutrients and river pollution but has profound consequences on the vegetation that occupies the slopes, making it harder for them to grow.
The long-term consequences are where I believe it is most clear the atrocious environmental ethics the industry holds. Development follows resorts. Each year more runs are carved out and houses built around the site. The water from streams and rivers is used to make snow. It is complete disregard that best characterizes this behavior. This brings up a term the textbook introduced “holism”, if something does not benefit the whole ecosystem don’t do it. Ski resorts benefit one, the human, over all else. This is best exemplified and a quote from Leopold “a thing as right when it tends to preserve the Integrity stability and beauty of the biotic community” (74) again, ski resorts fail the test, only serving the human and, in fact, trample many other members of the community.
Lens 2 - The Social Construct of Nature
The modern ski resort has altered the construct of nature through its vast manipulation of the landscape and seeming control over the seasons. With many visitors hoping to be immersed in a “pristine wilderness”, leave with a dangerous construction of nature and a misguided set of goals and understanding is typical. Due to the heavy landscape modification mentioned in the previous section, the construction of nature within a ski resort is far skewed from the relative state of the land. Humans gather a wide array of information from their landscape, this forms a social construction with which we base our assumptions and behavior on. One tool i found critically important to further thought was introduced by the text book: “Employing the notion of “discourse,” we can take this understanding further to explain how and why specific ideas of nature come to be normal, taken for granted, or inevitable, when they are not.” (Robbins) For example “piste” is a term to describe the marked trails down the mountain while “off-piste” refers to trails that are on unmarked and ungroomed terrain. As part of the discourse, these words are significant in shaping the way people view the mountain and the manipulated facets. Because the landscape and discourse is based off of a manipulated landscape, the actuality of problems and ecosystem health is obscured. This disconnect poses a threat not only to the ecosystems but the spaces of our minds that are so misguided. In fruition this could look like many things. But start with the snow, every inch is calculated to give the best skiing experience. On the front side especially, where snow cats push and groom snow to perfection. The snow makers begin their work long before the resort opens its doors, filling in the gaps that mother nature left bare. This perception of a pristine snow-covered Mountain can lead one to believe the season is normal and that the climate is fine when in reality, Winters are warming and snowfall decreasing due to climate change. 51% of resorts opened late and 49% closed early in 2011(Tilley), signs of the rough times to come.
Carving down the perfectly made corduroy on the perfect pitch on the perfect blue day, one is given the construction of a pristine slope. In reality this slope is the result of machine grading that will render that surface inhospitable to the biotic community for many years to come, possibly forever if not actively addressed. The varying results of the changes in the ecosystem are very long-term “unfortunately, environmental economist have not yet succeeded in evaluating many types of environmental Harms.” (Burt, et al) This means that the many millions of dollars the ski resort is pulling from the mountain will manifest itself as future costs to future generations, all things forgotten due to the meticulous construction resorts have made of nature.
Overall, the findings are clear. The environmental ethics of the ski resort industry are far out of alignment with the actualism of the situation. Their construct of nature that has been created threatens the Integrity of the skier conscience and that of the ecosystem itself. The resorts have many improvements to make surrounding their ethics and construction of nature if they want to continue to hold a place in the heart of the outdoors person, this change must occur now.
Robbins, Paul, John Hintz and Sarah A. Moore. Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, Chapters 5 and 8. (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014), accessed 16 Dec., 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Lovett, Richard A. “The Role of the Forest Service in Ski Resort Development: An Economic Approach To Public Lands Management.” Ecology Law Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 4, 1983, pp. 507–578. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24112640. Accessed 16 Dec. 2020.
Tenenbaum, David J. “Land Use. The Slippery Slope of Ski Expansion.” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 109, no. 3, 2001, pp. A112–A112. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3434674. Accessed 16 Dec. 2020.
“The Forest Service 2012 Directive: A Necessary Clarification in Ski Area Permit Act Water Rights Policy.” Tulane Environmental Law Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, 2013, pp. 287–312. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24673670. Accessed 16 Dec. 2020.
Burt, Jennifer W., and Kevin J. Rice. “Not All Ski Slopes Are Created Equal: Disturbance Intensity Affects Ecosystem Properties.” Ecological Applications, vol. 19, no. 8, 2009, pp. 2242–2253. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40346325. Accessed 16 Dec. 2020.
Roux-Fouillet, Philippe, et al. “Long-Term Impacts of Ski Piste Management on Alpine Vegetation and Soils.” Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 48, no. 4, 2011, pp. 906–915. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20870017. Accessed 16 Dec. 2020.
 | Do you wonder how much fish get caught from commercial boats? Do you wonder if there are enough fish to go around for everyone to eat? Well as Forbes states in their article “Two-Thirds Of The World's Seafood Is Overfished -- Here's How You Can Help” by Michael Pellman Rowland, that roughly 0.97 to 2.7 trillion fish are harvested and sold to different countries. These commercial fish industries overfish to make profit and distort the ecosystem. Most marine animals are drastically affected by this industry. Animals have issues finding food since these high industries are harvesting most of them and not allowing fishes to repopulate. Throughout our history commercial fishing keeps advancing due to new techniques and new technology. Before the Middle Ages most people caught fish in lakes, rivers, streams or tidal zones. Due to not having advanced fishing technology, fishing was a struggle. They would have the difficulty of catching fish so they would harvest other shellfish. Once the Middle Ages fisherman have started to advance their fishing techniques by starting to catch fish in massive numbers and using nets. The European first started to catch Herring in mass amounts and then started to aim toward cod. This started the Cod fisheries. Later on with the development of boats fisherman started to trawl and started to catch fishes in mass amounts. This changed the era into the commercial fishing industry. This causes a chain reaction throughout the world and fish has landed on the market for mass production. With mass production politics got involved. Many third world countries got impacted by commercial fishing. To insist, Indonesia was majorly affected by the commercial fishing industry. They lost a major source of food and income. Indonesia has a program called Indonesia Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries(MMPA). This program is to maintain the balance of the amount of fish reported in catch and the sizes of boats are allowed in certain areas. Due to confined spots certain sizes of boats can go due to being too large. However they found corruption within the program. A program that is runned by the government. Political economy has failed those Indonesian fishermen. With corruption within the system, commercial fishermen can harvest a mass amount of fish and overfish and not report the accurate catches. With no management strategy and false report of fish caught causes the Indonesian to struggle to maintain their lifestyle. With overfishing it has caused scientists to put regulations on certain species of fish. Tuna is one of those fisheries that have strict regulations due to overfishing them. Due to the tuna life cycles it takes a while for the fish to mature. So they put a regulation on the sizes. With overfishing occurring the maximum sustainable yield will decrease which causes fisherman to catch less. With the decline of 24.1% in commercial fishing it causes a concern. Not only the massive catching is affecting the industry but also all the carbon emission. The amount of boat leaving port causes a larger amount of carbon emission. In the show Wicked Tuna, shows the struggle in the Bluefin Tuna fisheries. With a limit of catching 3 fish per day goes down throughout the years to 1 fish per day. Roughly about 5 boats in the show go out to catch some tuna. With those boats it causes more carbon emissions in the air. We all now know what carbon emissions do to our world. It causes global warming.With commercial fishing do see any harm they are causing. They just see the money coming in from all parts of the world. . We need to start lowering the amount of commercial boats from overfishing, we need to put stricter regulations. We need to stop those corrupt programs and start regulating the fish population in each nation. We need to start taking care of the world or else we will end up with nothing.We need to stop overfishing and stop mass production. We can make the economy better if we have higher corporations taking all the jobs. If we let local fishermen gather the fish we can regulate the fish but we also help those small businesses to grow. This can help the economy and I would assume politics would be pleasant with that. Citation . Alessi, Michael De. “Archipelago of Gear: The Political Economy of Fisheries Management and Private Sustainable Fisheries Initiatives in Indonesia.” Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, vol. 1, no. 3, 2014, pp. 576–589., doi:10.1002/app5.40. “Commercial Fishing.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, www.sciencedaily.com/terms/commercial_fishing.htm. Jacob, S., Jepson, M., & Farmer, F. (2005). What You See Is Not Always What You Get: Aspect Dominance as a Confounding Factor in the Determination of Fishing Dependent Communities. Human Organization, 64(4), 374-385. Retrieved December 13, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/stable/44127368 Mam, Kalyanee, et al. “Lost World.” Emergence Magazine, emergencemagazine.org/story/lost-world/. Pike, Dag. “History of Commercial Fishing.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 26 July 1999, www.britannica.com/technology/commercial-fishing/History-of-commercial-fishing. Rowland, Michael Pellman. “Two-Thirds Of The World's Seafood Is Over-Fished -- Here's How You Can Help.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 25 July 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpellmanrowland/2017/07/24/seafood-sustainability-facts/?sh=281a4304bbfe. “Tuna.” Environment and Society: a Critical Introduction, by Paul Robbins et al., John Wiley Et Sons, Inc, 2014, pp. 224–242. Woody, Todd. “The Sea Is Running out of Fish, despite Nations' Pledges to Stop It.” Science, 8 Oct. 2019, www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/10/sea-running-out-of-fish-despite-nations-pledges-to-stop/. |
Introduction
The Tobacco Industry is not only guilty of killing our lungs, but they are also guilty of killing the planet. Whether it is cigarette butts or single-use disposable vape devices, the earth is covered in them. Over the past few years when walking around anywhere, I have always seen cigarette butts and disposable vapes. My object of concern is disposable plastic nicotine devices, vapes. I feel that the long impact of cigarette butts coming from the same industry must also be lightly included within the paper. I feel that this is necessary because the reason we have these disposable devices is that they are “better” than cigarettes and were invented to help smokers quit.
A Short History
The history of vaping, or vaporizing began long ago with the Ancient Egyptians as they knew special practices of heating herbs and oils on a stone that could be inhaled. Later in Northern Africa shishas, a long water pipe used to smoke tobacco became a well-known phenomenon. More well known, the hookah, which was invented in India, and is still used today all over the world. A few other people attempted to make a “smokeless cigarette” (When Did Vaping Start?) but none truly took off until a Chinese pharmacist Hon Lik, who successfully created the first vape-like device. He created the company, Ruyan, which spread the e-cigarette to the Middle East and Europe. In the year 2007, the United States allowed for e-cigarettes to be imported into the US. Since then, the vape industry has boomed and seems like it will continue to do so.
What I have seen the most of while in high school was JUUL, and today I see mainly disposable vape devices that have a certain amount of “puffs” or hits. This industry feeds off of young people, the CDC found that in the United States most vape users are more likely to be youth rather than adults (Mock & Hendlin). I have seen some schools take on movements against vapes like Palo Alto High School, where the ASB took on an anti-vaping committee to confront the issues coming along with vaping (Jain). Some of these issues are social division, the rising death toll related to vape related illnesses, the litter, and many more.
Environmental Ethics
Vapes are not only harmful to our bodies, they are also extremely harmful to the environment. Vape waste has increased heavily within the past decade. Along with this increase in vape waste, we have seen three large environmental issues coming from vapes: an increase in single-use plastic, an increase of tech waste from vapes, increase in hazardous chemicals that are toxic to the environment(Vape Waste: More Harmful Than You Think). As a large portion of vape users are young adults, and a large portion in high schools and even middle schools, users do not understand how to properly discard the devices. One high school in Boulder, Colorado is suffering from a large influx of underage students using vapes (Daley). Not only does this impact the students, but also the environment. Vapes contain several harmful chemicals within them: plastic, lithium-ion batteries, nicotine e-juice, and packaging materials. As the batteries are lithium-ion based and when not properly disposed the batteries break down and leach harmful toxins into the environment.
Not only does the battery have toxins, but the nicotine e-juice is also a huge problem. Even a small amount of nicotine left within a pod can poison an animal. Researchers have even found lead, nickel, and tin within vapes which will leak into the environment as well. “Toxic chemicals from commercial tobacco product waste can accumulate in animals, soil, and aquatic ecosystems, leading to contaminated drinking water and foods and posing additional downstream risks to human health and the environment” (Daley). Due to the toxic e-liquid left behind in pods, the US has yet to find a proper way to dispose of the pods and safely recycle them. All the US can do for now is to properly dispose of vapes at recycling centers, that is if users will even go that far. It seems that the only real way we can tackle the environmental issue which comes along with vaping is to not vape at all.
Risks and Hazards
There is a lot of risk and hazard which comes along with vaping. Vapes were created to help adults stop smoking nicotine products, but researchers have not seen this effect. Researchers have found that after vapes being brought onto the market very few adults are using them to help quit (Action needed on e-cigarettes). As JUUL claims to target adults above the age of 21, researchers have found that only “1.1% used JUUL alone, 5.6% used other e-cigarettes alone” (Only 3% of adult smokers used JUUL to quit in past year). Researchers have found that the tobacco industry has used marketing as a way to attract underage kids into buying the products. The tobacco industry has managed to package these deadly and addictive vapes in bright colors with fruit and candy flavors, all appealing to a younger and illegal audience. Flavored pods and juice will only further the youth vaping epidemic.
Another hazard that comes along with vapes, accidental nicotine poisoning. The Poison and Drug Centers have received many calls related to accidental nicotine poisoning from vapes that were not properly discarded. A fair amount of users are guilty of littering their vape waste. Imagine playing with your baby at the park and when you turn around for a moment and your child has an old pod in their mouth and they get nicotine poisoning. There are even incidences of young children and babies getting a hold of spilled nicotine juice or a JUUL sitting on a countertop. It is not something that should be laughed at. Nicotine is poison.
Conclusion
I find it very clear that the tobacco industry has managed to control a large amount of people within the United States due to the highly addictive chemical, nicotine, within their products. There is a clear negative impact the tobacco industry, specifically vapes, is having on our society. Whether it comes down to our minds, lungs, the planet, or even the future, vapes are having an impact. Vapes are becoming more and more popular and will continue to do so unless we take action against them. Purchasing these products will not only have a negative impact on you, but also everyone around you and the earth. People need to understand the impacts the industry is having and call for change.
References
Action needed on e-cigarettes. (2020, November 13). Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/emerging-tobacco-products/action-needed-e-cigarettes
Daley, J. (2019, November 28). How Vaping Could Be Damaging The Environment. Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://www.npr.org/2019/11/28/783551058/how-vaping-could-be-damaging-the-environment
Daley, J. (2019, November 29). Don't Toss That E-Cig: Vaping Waste Is A Whole New Headache For Schools and Cities. Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/11/29/780865248/dont-toss-that-e-cig-vaping-waste-is-a-whole-new-headache-for-schools-and-cities
Jain, K. (2019, October 24). Paly ASB starts anti-vape commitee. Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://palyvoice.com/151605/news/paly-asb-starts-anti-vape-commitee/
Mock, J., & Hendlin, Y. H. (2019, October 10). Notes from the Field: Environmental Contamination from E-cigarette, Cigarette, Cigar, and Cannabis Products at 12 High Schools - San Francisco Bay Area, 2018–2019. Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6840a4.htm
Robbins, Paul. (2014). Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, Environmental Ethics. Blackwell publishing.
Robbins, Paul. (2014). Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, Risks and Hazards. Blackwell publishing.
Only 3% of adult smokers used JUUL to quit in past year. (2020, September 25). Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/emerging-tobacco-products/new-study-only-3-adult-smokers-used-juul-quit-past
Unknown, E. (2020, September 2). When Did Vaping Start? Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://www.vaporesso.com/blog/when-did-vaping-start
Vape Waste: More Harmful Than You Think. (2020, August 11). Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://tobaccofreeca.com/environment/vape-waste-more-harmful-than-you-think/
The Tobacco Industry is not only guilty of killing our lungs, but they are also guilty of killing the planet. Whether it is cigarette butts or single-use disposable vape devices, the earth is covered in them. Over the past few years when walking around anywhere, I have always seen cigarette butts and disposable vapes. My object of concern is disposable plastic nicotine devices, vapes. I feel that the long impact of cigarette butts coming from the same industry must also be lightly included within the paper. I feel that this is necessary because the reason we have these disposable devices is that they are “better” than cigarettes and were invented to help smokers quit.
A Short History
The history of vaping, or vaporizing began long ago with the Ancient Egyptians as they knew special practices of heating herbs and oils on a stone that could be inhaled. Later in Northern Africa shishas, a long water pipe used to smoke tobacco became a well-known phenomenon. More well known, the hookah, which was invented in India, and is still used today all over the world. A few other people attempted to make a “smokeless cigarette” (When Did Vaping Start?) but none truly took off until a Chinese pharmacist Hon Lik, who successfully created the first vape-like device. He created the company, Ruyan, which spread the e-cigarette to the Middle East and Europe. In the year 2007, the United States allowed for e-cigarettes to be imported into the US. Since then, the vape industry has boomed and seems like it will continue to do so.
What I have seen the most of while in high school was JUUL, and today I see mainly disposable vape devices that have a certain amount of “puffs” or hits. This industry feeds off of young people, the CDC found that in the United States most vape users are more likely to be youth rather than adults (Mock & Hendlin). I have seen some schools take on movements against vapes like Palo Alto High School, where the ASB took on an anti-vaping committee to confront the issues coming along with vaping (Jain). Some of these issues are social division, the rising death toll related to vape related illnesses, the litter, and many more.
Environmental Ethics
Vapes are not only harmful to our bodies, they are also extremely harmful to the environment. Vape waste has increased heavily within the past decade. Along with this increase in vape waste, we have seen three large environmental issues coming from vapes: an increase in single-use plastic, an increase of tech waste from vapes, increase in hazardous chemicals that are toxic to the environment(Vape Waste: More Harmful Than You Think). As a large portion of vape users are young adults, and a large portion in high schools and even middle schools, users do not understand how to properly discard the devices. One high school in Boulder, Colorado is suffering from a large influx of underage students using vapes (Daley). Not only does this impact the students, but also the environment. Vapes contain several harmful chemicals within them: plastic, lithium-ion batteries, nicotine e-juice, and packaging materials. As the batteries are lithium-ion based and when not properly disposed the batteries break down and leach harmful toxins into the environment.
Not only does the battery have toxins, but the nicotine e-juice is also a huge problem. Even a small amount of nicotine left within a pod can poison an animal. Researchers have even found lead, nickel, and tin within vapes which will leak into the environment as well. “Toxic chemicals from commercial tobacco product waste can accumulate in animals, soil, and aquatic ecosystems, leading to contaminated drinking water and foods and posing additional downstream risks to human health and the environment” (Daley). Due to the toxic e-liquid left behind in pods, the US has yet to find a proper way to dispose of the pods and safely recycle them. All the US can do for now is to properly dispose of vapes at recycling centers, that is if users will even go that far. It seems that the only real way we can tackle the environmental issue which comes along with vaping is to not vape at all.
Risks and Hazards
There is a lot of risk and hazard which comes along with vaping. Vapes were created to help adults stop smoking nicotine products, but researchers have not seen this effect. Researchers have found that after vapes being brought onto the market very few adults are using them to help quit (Action needed on e-cigarettes). As JUUL claims to target adults above the age of 21, researchers have found that only “1.1% used JUUL alone, 5.6% used other e-cigarettes alone” (Only 3% of adult smokers used JUUL to quit in past year). Researchers have found that the tobacco industry has used marketing as a way to attract underage kids into buying the products. The tobacco industry has managed to package these deadly and addictive vapes in bright colors with fruit and candy flavors, all appealing to a younger and illegal audience. Flavored pods and juice will only further the youth vaping epidemic.
Another hazard that comes along with vapes, accidental nicotine poisoning. The Poison and Drug Centers have received many calls related to accidental nicotine poisoning from vapes that were not properly discarded. A fair amount of users are guilty of littering their vape waste. Imagine playing with your baby at the park and when you turn around for a moment and your child has an old pod in their mouth and they get nicotine poisoning. There are even incidences of young children and babies getting a hold of spilled nicotine juice or a JUUL sitting on a countertop. It is not something that should be laughed at. Nicotine is poison.
Conclusion
I find it very clear that the tobacco industry has managed to control a large amount of people within the United States due to the highly addictive chemical, nicotine, within their products. There is a clear negative impact the tobacco industry, specifically vapes, is having on our society. Whether it comes down to our minds, lungs, the planet, or even the future, vapes are having an impact. Vapes are becoming more and more popular and will continue to do so unless we take action against them. Purchasing these products will not only have a negative impact on you, but also everyone around you and the earth. People need to understand the impacts the industry is having and call for change.
References
Action needed on e-cigarettes. (2020, November 13). Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/emerging-tobacco-products/action-needed-e-cigarettes
Daley, J. (2019, November 28). How Vaping Could Be Damaging The Environment. Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://www.npr.org/2019/11/28/783551058/how-vaping-could-be-damaging-the-environment
Daley, J. (2019, November 29). Don't Toss That E-Cig: Vaping Waste Is A Whole New Headache For Schools and Cities. Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/11/29/780865248/dont-toss-that-e-cig-vaping-waste-is-a-whole-new-headache-for-schools-and-cities
Jain, K. (2019, October 24). Paly ASB starts anti-vape commitee. Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://palyvoice.com/151605/news/paly-asb-starts-anti-vape-commitee/
Mock, J., & Hendlin, Y. H. (2019, October 10). Notes from the Field: Environmental Contamination from E-cigarette, Cigarette, Cigar, and Cannabis Products at 12 High Schools - San Francisco Bay Area, 2018–2019. Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6840a4.htm
Robbins, Paul. (2014). Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, Environmental Ethics. Blackwell publishing.
Robbins, Paul. (2014). Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, Risks and Hazards. Blackwell publishing.
Only 3% of adult smokers used JUUL to quit in past year. (2020, September 25). Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/emerging-tobacco-products/new-study-only-3-adult-smokers-used-juul-quit-past
Unknown, E. (2020, September 2). When Did Vaping Start? Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://www.vaporesso.com/blog/when-did-vaping-start
Vape Waste: More Harmful Than You Think. (2020, August 11). Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://tobaccofreeca.com/environment/vape-waste-more-harmful-than-you-think/
Elijah Moore
Introduction:
Sleep, sleep is by far one of the most important aspects of a person’s day in order to stay sane within their own minds, while also keeping their mental and physical health intact. Let’s take a moment to think about how our sleep has been, depending on if we slept on a mattress or not. There have been so many times that I have not been able to sleep and had no choice but to stay awake until I couldn’t keep my eyes open any longer. Mattresses most definitely have evolved over the years; but there's no better sleep I have experienced with that being on a couch, on a reclining chair, on a carpeted floor, or even on the earth while being inside a tent; that has compared to the sleep I have gotten while sleeping on a mattress.
Having a good mattress is very important because it helps to aid and improve the overall health of your body. A good mattress supports your spinal alignment which will prevent long term chronic pain, aid in snoring since snoring happens from a blockage in your airway while you are sleeping, and reduce stress since you are going to be able to get a good night's rest with minimal interruptions pertaining to your comfort. It is very sad to say, but being able to sleep on a mattress every night is a privilege and I think a lot of people take that for granted, including me. Researching mattresses is not a common thing unless you plan on purchasing a brand new mattress and you want to make sure you are making the right decision, but mattresses are used and disposed of so frequently that we could only imagine where they end up. It would be interesting to find out the actual history behind the mattress and see if it is either harmful or helpful to the environment.
History:
According to Sleep on Latex, “The earliest known form of a mattress dates back to approximately 77,000 years ago. It was discovered by archaeologists in a rock shelter located in Sibudu, South Africa. It was comprised of various types of grass and leaves, some of which were natural insect repellent to combat nuisances like mosquitos and other insects” (Latex). These beds were made to fit the entire family and would be around “ 12-inches thick and a whopping 22 square feet”(Ullman). The importance of these beds being so big were to make sure the families would be able to not only stay safe but to also keep each other warm. The next form of a mattress or bed was discovered in 8,000 BC in Hinds Cave in Texas. This is where the early hunter gatherers who were always on the go and never really settled in a specific place for a long period of time would gather leaves and feathers in an oval like shape, which archaeologists hypothesized they slept in fetal positions because the mounds were not big enough for a human to stretch out on.
From 3,000 B.C to 476 A.D, both Ancient Egypt and Ancient Rome slept on raised beds that were created from metal and also plain wood. These beds were raised in order for the temperatures in that area could regulate under and around the people on the beds, also to remove them from possibilities of rodents and insects making their ways to harm them during the night. Throughout the 5th to 15th century in Europe, having a bed and mattress was solely made for the wealthy, and was also a way for them to express their wealth to the village folk. These mattresses were stuffed deep with feathers and down, their sheets were made of pure linen. Poverty during the medieval times would account for you to sleep on a bag that was stuffed with hay either on the floor or on a raised platform. During the Renaissance period is when they began to tie ropes together on the platform of the bed in order to hold the mattress up which was stuffed very generously with down and feathers as well. In the 18th century, bed frames transitioned from being made out of wood, to now being made out of metal. Mattresses were now being made stuffed with cotton instead of hay or down, and they became a lot more mainstream and more easily accessible. Fast forward to the 21st century, mattresses are almost found in every single house; being made of silicon, latex, cotton, memory foam, and even air.
Lens Framework 1: Risks and Hazards
When we sleep, we are expected to feel the most safe regarding our health and well being. Come to find out, some mattresses pose major health risks to us humans while we are sleeping. Organic latex mattresses don’t pose any risks, but some mattresses like “memory foam mattresses or mattresses made of polyurethane or other synthetics”(Liz) pose the biggest health risk with mattresses known as Chemical-Off Gassing. “Flame retardants, formaldehyde, and benzene have been found in some mattresses and can be linked to health issues such as cancer, infertility, and developmental brain disorders”(Liz). These are very big health concerns that we all should be made aware of, especially given the fact that we sleep for hours on end each night and we also spend a third of our lives sleeping which means our exposure to these harsh chemicals are very frequent.
Mattresses don’t only pose risks to us humans, but also account for a large amount of pollution to our environment. “Around 20 million mattresses are thrown into landfills every year and just 1 mattress can take up 40 cubic feet of space”(Tarantino), mattress disposal accounts for a lot of heavy machinery needed to break them down and be processed in the landfill. Along with the toxins these mattresses are made of, those toxins can seep into the soil and make their way into the water which will ultimately pollute the water to a point of toxicity.
Lens Framework #2: Environmental Ethics
Now that we are living in the 21st century where technology is booming and consumers are increasing dramatically, the production of mattresses has changed as well. Although it is a good thing that these producers are taking into account the harmful effects of mattresses and beginning to make environmentally friendly mattresses, the old mattresses are being disposed of at an alarming rate which is negatively affecting the environment. “Mattresses are a global environmental nightmare. The U.S throws away 18.2 million mattresses a year, but there are only 56 facilities available to recycle them”(Kale). Some producers are allowing 30 to 365 day return policies, which is allowing people to return mattresses a lot more frequently, causing the landfills to be over capacity regarding the disposal of these used mattresses. Is it really necessary for us to constantly return mattresses and buy mattresses so frequently when we know where they are going to end up? Are we even considering the effects of these mattresses and how they are evidently becoming harmful to the environment and raising the carbon footprint at extremely high rates due to the so many large pieces of machinery needed to regulate and consolidate these mattresses to dispose of them?
When purchasing a mattress, there are some things that we can search for in order to play our part in the sustainability of our planet and contribute to the eco-friendly lifestyle. From an article on Ecocult, we are told that producers use the word Eco-foam to promote their “sustainable” mattresses, but they are made of memory foam and could still contain toxic materials. So they have provided us with some questions we need to ask in order to make sure we are purchasing an actual environmentally friendly mattress. “ What are the core components made of?, Where do they come from?, Are you using glue to bind the layers together?, Are you using fire retardant? What kind?, What certifications do you have, and Can you send me a full copy of the legal tag?”(Wicker). These questions will point us in the right direction to where we can purchase an environmental friendly mattress and reduce our impact on the environment.
Conclusion:
With all things considered, I have learned a lot about the overall effects of mattresses that I had no idea about. As common as mattresses are and how advanced technology is, I am surprised that pillow-top and memory foam mattresses are still being made and sold. We should most definitely be able to come up with a sustainable material that can be used all over the map and get rid of all these products that are full of harsh chemicals that can affect us humans and this earth as well. If we can make a car drive itself, how can we not be able to provide sustainable material for producers to use and allow products to be able to make their way back into the earth and only provide nourishment to the earth and good risk free nights of sleep.
Work Cited:
Ullman, Michelle. “Beds Through the Ages: From a Pile of Leaves to the Modern Mattress.” The Spruce, www.thespruce.com/the-history-of-the-bed-4062296.
Prime, Michael. “The Importance of a Good Mattress for Your Health.” Birlea Furniture, Birlea Furniture, 18 Sept. 2018, https://birlea.com/the-importance-of-a-good-mattress-for-your-health/
Liz. “Is Your Mattress Toxic? Symptoms & Solutions.” Savvy Rest, https://savvyrest.com/blog/your-mattress-toxic-symptoms-solutions#:~:text=Flame%20retardants%2C%20formaldehyde%2C%20and%20benzene,toxins%20for%20hours%20every%20night.
Tarantino, Angie. “The Environmental Impact of Mattresses |.” The Environmental Blog, www.theenvironmentalblog.org/2019/11/environmental-impact-mattresses/
Kale, Sirin. “The Mattress Landfill Crisis: How the Race to Bring Us Better Beds Led to a Recycling Nightmare.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 12 Feb. 2020, www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/12/mattress-landfill-crisis-recycling-nightmare.
Wicker, Alden. “11 Non-Toxic and Sustainable Mattresses for 2020.” Ecocult, 12 Oct. 2020, https://ecocult.com/find-nontoxic-sustainable-mattresses
Introduction:
Sleep, sleep is by far one of the most important aspects of a person’s day in order to stay sane within their own minds, while also keeping their mental and physical health intact. Let’s take a moment to think about how our sleep has been, depending on if we slept on a mattress or not. There have been so many times that I have not been able to sleep and had no choice but to stay awake until I couldn’t keep my eyes open any longer. Mattresses most definitely have evolved over the years; but there's no better sleep I have experienced with that being on a couch, on a reclining chair, on a carpeted floor, or even on the earth while being inside a tent; that has compared to the sleep I have gotten while sleeping on a mattress.
Having a good mattress is very important because it helps to aid and improve the overall health of your body. A good mattress supports your spinal alignment which will prevent long term chronic pain, aid in snoring since snoring happens from a blockage in your airway while you are sleeping, and reduce stress since you are going to be able to get a good night's rest with minimal interruptions pertaining to your comfort. It is very sad to say, but being able to sleep on a mattress every night is a privilege and I think a lot of people take that for granted, including me. Researching mattresses is not a common thing unless you plan on purchasing a brand new mattress and you want to make sure you are making the right decision, but mattresses are used and disposed of so frequently that we could only imagine where they end up. It would be interesting to find out the actual history behind the mattress and see if it is either harmful or helpful to the environment.
History:
According to Sleep on Latex, “The earliest known form of a mattress dates back to approximately 77,000 years ago. It was discovered by archaeologists in a rock shelter located in Sibudu, South Africa. It was comprised of various types of grass and leaves, some of which were natural insect repellent to combat nuisances like mosquitos and other insects” (Latex). These beds were made to fit the entire family and would be around “ 12-inches thick and a whopping 22 square feet”(Ullman). The importance of these beds being so big were to make sure the families would be able to not only stay safe but to also keep each other warm. The next form of a mattress or bed was discovered in 8,000 BC in Hinds Cave in Texas. This is where the early hunter gatherers who were always on the go and never really settled in a specific place for a long period of time would gather leaves and feathers in an oval like shape, which archaeologists hypothesized they slept in fetal positions because the mounds were not big enough for a human to stretch out on.
From 3,000 B.C to 476 A.D, both Ancient Egypt and Ancient Rome slept on raised beds that were created from metal and also plain wood. These beds were raised in order for the temperatures in that area could regulate under and around the people on the beds, also to remove them from possibilities of rodents and insects making their ways to harm them during the night. Throughout the 5th to 15th century in Europe, having a bed and mattress was solely made for the wealthy, and was also a way for them to express their wealth to the village folk. These mattresses were stuffed deep with feathers and down, their sheets were made of pure linen. Poverty during the medieval times would account for you to sleep on a bag that was stuffed with hay either on the floor or on a raised platform. During the Renaissance period is when they began to tie ropes together on the platform of the bed in order to hold the mattress up which was stuffed very generously with down and feathers as well. In the 18th century, bed frames transitioned from being made out of wood, to now being made out of metal. Mattresses were now being made stuffed with cotton instead of hay or down, and they became a lot more mainstream and more easily accessible. Fast forward to the 21st century, mattresses are almost found in every single house; being made of silicon, latex, cotton, memory foam, and even air.
Lens Framework 1: Risks and Hazards
When we sleep, we are expected to feel the most safe regarding our health and well being. Come to find out, some mattresses pose major health risks to us humans while we are sleeping. Organic latex mattresses don’t pose any risks, but some mattresses like “memory foam mattresses or mattresses made of polyurethane or other synthetics”(Liz) pose the biggest health risk with mattresses known as Chemical-Off Gassing. “Flame retardants, formaldehyde, and benzene have been found in some mattresses and can be linked to health issues such as cancer, infertility, and developmental brain disorders”(Liz). These are very big health concerns that we all should be made aware of, especially given the fact that we sleep for hours on end each night and we also spend a third of our lives sleeping which means our exposure to these harsh chemicals are very frequent.
Mattresses don’t only pose risks to us humans, but also account for a large amount of pollution to our environment. “Around 20 million mattresses are thrown into landfills every year and just 1 mattress can take up 40 cubic feet of space”(Tarantino), mattress disposal accounts for a lot of heavy machinery needed to break them down and be processed in the landfill. Along with the toxins these mattresses are made of, those toxins can seep into the soil and make their way into the water which will ultimately pollute the water to a point of toxicity.
Lens Framework #2: Environmental Ethics
Now that we are living in the 21st century where technology is booming and consumers are increasing dramatically, the production of mattresses has changed as well. Although it is a good thing that these producers are taking into account the harmful effects of mattresses and beginning to make environmentally friendly mattresses, the old mattresses are being disposed of at an alarming rate which is negatively affecting the environment. “Mattresses are a global environmental nightmare. The U.S throws away 18.2 million mattresses a year, but there are only 56 facilities available to recycle them”(Kale). Some producers are allowing 30 to 365 day return policies, which is allowing people to return mattresses a lot more frequently, causing the landfills to be over capacity regarding the disposal of these used mattresses. Is it really necessary for us to constantly return mattresses and buy mattresses so frequently when we know where they are going to end up? Are we even considering the effects of these mattresses and how they are evidently becoming harmful to the environment and raising the carbon footprint at extremely high rates due to the so many large pieces of machinery needed to regulate and consolidate these mattresses to dispose of them?
When purchasing a mattress, there are some things that we can search for in order to play our part in the sustainability of our planet and contribute to the eco-friendly lifestyle. From an article on Ecocult, we are told that producers use the word Eco-foam to promote their “sustainable” mattresses, but they are made of memory foam and could still contain toxic materials. So they have provided us with some questions we need to ask in order to make sure we are purchasing an actual environmentally friendly mattress. “ What are the core components made of?, Where do they come from?, Are you using glue to bind the layers together?, Are you using fire retardant? What kind?, What certifications do you have, and Can you send me a full copy of the legal tag?”(Wicker). These questions will point us in the right direction to where we can purchase an environmental friendly mattress and reduce our impact on the environment.
Conclusion:
With all things considered, I have learned a lot about the overall effects of mattresses that I had no idea about. As common as mattresses are and how advanced technology is, I am surprised that pillow-top and memory foam mattresses are still being made and sold. We should most definitely be able to come up with a sustainable material that can be used all over the map and get rid of all these products that are full of harsh chemicals that can affect us humans and this earth as well. If we can make a car drive itself, how can we not be able to provide sustainable material for producers to use and allow products to be able to make their way back into the earth and only provide nourishment to the earth and good risk free nights of sleep.
Work Cited:
Ullman, Michelle. “Beds Through the Ages: From a Pile of Leaves to the Modern Mattress.” The Spruce, www.thespruce.com/the-history-of-the-bed-4062296.
Prime, Michael. “The Importance of a Good Mattress for Your Health.” Birlea Furniture, Birlea Furniture, 18 Sept. 2018, https://birlea.com/the-importance-of-a-good-mattress-for-your-health/
Liz. “Is Your Mattress Toxic? Symptoms & Solutions.” Savvy Rest, https://savvyrest.com/blog/your-mattress-toxic-symptoms-solutions#:~:text=Flame%20retardants%2C%20formaldehyde%2C%20and%20benzene,toxins%20for%20hours%20every%20night.
Tarantino, Angie. “The Environmental Impact of Mattresses |.” The Environmental Blog, www.theenvironmentalblog.org/2019/11/environmental-impact-mattresses/
Kale, Sirin. “The Mattress Landfill Crisis: How the Race to Bring Us Better Beds Led to a Recycling Nightmare.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 12 Feb. 2020, www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/12/mattress-landfill-crisis-recycling-nightmare.
Wicker, Alden. “11 Non-Toxic and Sustainable Mattresses for 2020.” Ecocult, 12 Oct. 2020, https://ecocult.com/find-nontoxic-sustainable-mattresses
Introduction
Drugs aren’t a new phenomenon, as seen with heavy tobacco use in 16th century London, and the Opium Wars of the 1840’s.[1] This includes Cannabis, a plant that has been cultivated for millennia, and is enjoyed today by many. When our parents were growing up the public support for the federal legalization of cannabis was minimal, a stark contrast to the current generation of young adults in California, and various others states where cannabis is legal for medicinal andrecreational use. Woodstock took place in 1969, and in this almost half century gap of time since then there has been mass amounts controversy and discussion that have surrounded Cannabis. Whether it be criminal activity (conversely, retroactive pardons), environmental damage and pollution, medicinal benefits, or taxation and revenue, there are a variety of issues and discussions taking place in the industry. While your average marijuana user has no interest other than the effects of the drug, it’s important to consider the bigger picture surrounding cannabis and its cultivation. With legalization looking more likely across the country, how will we regulate the industry? How will society balance the economic and environmental impacts of cannabis? This paper will focus on the history of cannabis, and seek to analyze the environmental ethics aspect of cannabis cultivation, along with the commons and institutional aspect of cannabis.
Short History of Cannabis
Cannabis has been used for many centuries due to the versatility of the plant. In fact it has been suggested that it is the one of the oldest cultivated crops on the planet, with cultivation starting almost 12,000 years ago. Two species have been the main players over time: Cannabis sativa L (hemp) and Cannabis sativa (marijuana). Hemp has been used to manufacture and produce things like rope, clothing, paper and even sails. Marijuana, the focus of this paper, comes from cultivation of female plants and it produces a sticky, psychoactive substance known as delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). It is with the rise of capitalism and the world economic system that we see Cannabis become a worldwide commodity. It’s history in the United States has been rocky, and has long been outlawed in many parts of the country. During the 1960’s its popularity skyrocketed thanks to increased usage by middle class individuals expanding from more traditional usage by lower-income minority populations, and due to more liberalized thinking brought on by the Vietnam War. It hasn’t been until recently that certain states have begun to legalize recreational use, and the federal government still considers it illegal.[2]
Environmental Ethics Lens
When it comes to cannabis, increased or mass cultivation has brought on new environmental problems that growers, and governments will need to address in the coming years. In the context of California, the crop can require up to 22 liters of water per day, and at times the demands for water exceed the actual amount of water flowing in nearby rivers, leaving less water for aquatic life downstream.[3] This issue is something particularly close to home for Humboldt locals, as there are 4,000 trespass grows on federal lands and 10,000 on private lands in the county alone.[4] As mentioned before, with an increase in cultivation we will see an increase in demands for water, so how has this affected wildlife and the local ecosystem? According to a study published by HSU’s Sociology department, the rapid expansion of these grows have polluted and dewatered streams and watersheds, killed wildlife, and are destroying the forest.[5] Not only are these grows trespassing on federal land, they are harming the environment of Native American lands belonging to local tribes. These grows also use mass amounts of rodenticides to protect their irrigation lines, and has been linked to the poisoning of animals such as mule deer, gray foxes, coyotes, northern spotted owls and ravens.[6]
What we me must ask ourselves next in regards to the cultivation of cannabis is how we plan to conserve our natural resources like water while needing more water now more than ever. Conservation, “the efficient and sustainable use of natural resources,”[7] is something that we should always be striving to practice if we are seeking to build a sustainable future. With legalization, the regulation of cannabis can address environmental issues associated with cultivation according to Jennifer Carah, senior scientist in the water program at The Nature Conservancy of California.[8]In my opinion legalization could possibly be a more ecocentric solution than an anthropocentric one because it can benefit the environment and our natural resources. If we want to protect the environment, legalization seems to provide at least a pathway to curbing potential problems caused by illegal operations.
Commons Lens
“The Tragedy of the Commons” comes to mind when considering the cannabis industry because like any industry in a capitalist system, there are bound to be some sort of crises that will occur. The most relevant commons in the textbook to this paper is referred to as
‘ingenious flowing commons: Irrigation.”[9] Grow sites are operated on a smaller scale, but the water that sustains them is supposed to be managed collectively by all users of the irrigation network.[10] With the amount of illegal growing sites in Humboldt County it becomes harder to figure out who’s consuming the majority of the water, and thus stunts water conservation progress by environmental groups.[11] On the other side of the coin however, some argue that social relationships around illegal marijuana production and distribution are “more consonant with the values of mutual aid, cooperation, reciprocity, self-management, and the re-distribution of wealth” than legal operations.[12] However pure the intentions of traditional or private growers may be, it is important for the collective population to have the ability to monitor water usage and other natural resources being consumed by marijuana cultivation. If the federal government was to legalize marijuana then perhaps it become less dangerous for conservation groups to investigate these things and resolve conflicts amongst users and governments.[13] I also think it would be able to create a whole new sector of jobs that could stimulate cities, or even rural economies.
Conclusion
Even though cannabis has been around for thousands of years, in the United States the legal industry is still in its infancy. While the tax revenue that comes from legalization is an enticing reason on its own, it may be the environmental benefits that will convince society to pursue it. We like to think that we’ve progressed as a society, but what our current situation reminds me of is the 1920’s and Prohibition, 100 years ago. Marijuana has been perceived by more conservative leaning people of the country as “dangerous” or even “immoral,” and these same things were said during Prohibition about alcohol. What we missed out on during those years was tremendous tax revenue that could’ve possibly helped prevent the Great Depression. As a 26-year-old man, I’ve lived through two recessions now, and now I wonder what sort of economic benefits a vast legal marijuana market would do for every day Americans and financial inequality. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge the negative along with the positive, and that means focusing on the environmental impact on unchecked, illegal growers. Managing our environmental impact is more important than ever, and the need for regulation is more important than ever with destruction of ecosystems. My hope for my state of California is that we continue to innovate and work towards more sustainable systems of managing our natural resources while cultivating a crop that can bring immense economic growth to the state.
Works Cited
Everett, Yvonne. "A Challenge to Socio-Ecological Resilience: Community Based Resource Management Organizations’ Perceptions and Responses to Cannabis Cultivation in Northern California." Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 40 (2018): 89-115. Accessed December 16, 2020. https://www.jstor.org/stable/90023267.
Helmer, Jodi. “The Environmental Downside of Cannabis Cultivation.” JSTOR Daily. June 18, 2019. https://daily.jstor.org/the-environmental-downside-of-cannabis-cultivation/.
Robbins, Paul, John Hintz and Sarah A. Moore. Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, Chapters 4 and 5. (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014), accessed December 16, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Thunderstorm, June. "Smoked Out: The Great Enclosure of the Marijuana Commons." The Baffler, no. 36 (2017): 130-38. Accessed December 16, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44466640.
Warf, Barney. “High Points: An Historical Geography of Cannabis.” Geographical Review 104, no. 4 (October 2014): 414–38. doi:10.1111/j.1931-0846.2014.12038.x.
Endnotes
[1] Barney Warf, “High Points: An Historical Geography of Cannabis,” Geographical Review 104, no. 4 (October 2014), 414, (url provided in works cited).
[2] The section of this paper titled: “A Short History of Cannabis” uses information found in Warf, “High Points” 416, 417, 419, 425, 428, 430-431.
[3] Jodi Helmer, “The Environmental Downside of Cannabis Cultivation,” JSTOR Daily, June 18, 2019, https://daily.jstor.org/the-environmental-downside-of-cannabis-cultivation/.
[4] Yvonne Everett, “A Challenge to Socio-Ecological Resilience: Community Based Resource Management Organizations’ Perceptions and Responses to Cannabis Cultivation in Northern California,” Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 40, 2018, 97, https://www.jstor.org/stable/90023267.
[5] Everett, “Challenge to Socio-Ecological Resilience,” 94.
[6] Helmer, “The Environmental Downside,” JSOTR Daily.
[7] Paul Robbins, John Hintz and Sarah A. Moore, Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, Chapter 5: Environmental Ethics, (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014), 70, accessed December 16, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
[8] Helmer, “The Environmental Downside,” JSOTR Daily.
[9] Paul Robbins, John Hintz and Sarah A. Moore, Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, Chapter 4: Institutions and ‘The Commons,’(Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014), 59, accessed December 16, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
[10] Robbins, et al., “Chapter 4: Institutions and ‘The Commons.,’” 59.
[11] Everett, “Challenge to Socio-Ecological Resilience,” 94.
[12] June Thunderstorm, “Smoked Out: The Great Enclosure of the Marijuana Commons,” The Baffler, no. 36 (Fall 2017), 134, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44466640.pdf?ab_segments=0%252Fbasic_SYC-5187_SYC-5188%252Fcontrol&refreqid=excelsior%3Ac492f10e31a5e504cec925ca9e74d0d.
[13] Robbins, et al., “Chapter 4: Institutions and ‘The Commons.,’” 58.
Drugs aren’t a new phenomenon, as seen with heavy tobacco use in 16th century London, and the Opium Wars of the 1840’s.[1] This includes Cannabis, a plant that has been cultivated for millennia, and is enjoyed today by many. When our parents were growing up the public support for the federal legalization of cannabis was minimal, a stark contrast to the current generation of young adults in California, and various others states where cannabis is legal for medicinal andrecreational use. Woodstock took place in 1969, and in this almost half century gap of time since then there has been mass amounts controversy and discussion that have surrounded Cannabis. Whether it be criminal activity (conversely, retroactive pardons), environmental damage and pollution, medicinal benefits, or taxation and revenue, there are a variety of issues and discussions taking place in the industry. While your average marijuana user has no interest other than the effects of the drug, it’s important to consider the bigger picture surrounding cannabis and its cultivation. With legalization looking more likely across the country, how will we regulate the industry? How will society balance the economic and environmental impacts of cannabis? This paper will focus on the history of cannabis, and seek to analyze the environmental ethics aspect of cannabis cultivation, along with the commons and institutional aspect of cannabis.
Short History of Cannabis
Cannabis has been used for many centuries due to the versatility of the plant. In fact it has been suggested that it is the one of the oldest cultivated crops on the planet, with cultivation starting almost 12,000 years ago. Two species have been the main players over time: Cannabis sativa L (hemp) and Cannabis sativa (marijuana). Hemp has been used to manufacture and produce things like rope, clothing, paper and even sails. Marijuana, the focus of this paper, comes from cultivation of female plants and it produces a sticky, psychoactive substance known as delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). It is with the rise of capitalism and the world economic system that we see Cannabis become a worldwide commodity. It’s history in the United States has been rocky, and has long been outlawed in many parts of the country. During the 1960’s its popularity skyrocketed thanks to increased usage by middle class individuals expanding from more traditional usage by lower-income minority populations, and due to more liberalized thinking brought on by the Vietnam War. It hasn’t been until recently that certain states have begun to legalize recreational use, and the federal government still considers it illegal.[2]
Environmental Ethics Lens
When it comes to cannabis, increased or mass cultivation has brought on new environmental problems that growers, and governments will need to address in the coming years. In the context of California, the crop can require up to 22 liters of water per day, and at times the demands for water exceed the actual amount of water flowing in nearby rivers, leaving less water for aquatic life downstream.[3] This issue is something particularly close to home for Humboldt locals, as there are 4,000 trespass grows on federal lands and 10,000 on private lands in the county alone.[4] As mentioned before, with an increase in cultivation we will see an increase in demands for water, so how has this affected wildlife and the local ecosystem? According to a study published by HSU’s Sociology department, the rapid expansion of these grows have polluted and dewatered streams and watersheds, killed wildlife, and are destroying the forest.[5] Not only are these grows trespassing on federal land, they are harming the environment of Native American lands belonging to local tribes. These grows also use mass amounts of rodenticides to protect their irrigation lines, and has been linked to the poisoning of animals such as mule deer, gray foxes, coyotes, northern spotted owls and ravens.[6]
What we me must ask ourselves next in regards to the cultivation of cannabis is how we plan to conserve our natural resources like water while needing more water now more than ever. Conservation, “the efficient and sustainable use of natural resources,”[7] is something that we should always be striving to practice if we are seeking to build a sustainable future. With legalization, the regulation of cannabis can address environmental issues associated with cultivation according to Jennifer Carah, senior scientist in the water program at The Nature Conservancy of California.[8]In my opinion legalization could possibly be a more ecocentric solution than an anthropocentric one because it can benefit the environment and our natural resources. If we want to protect the environment, legalization seems to provide at least a pathway to curbing potential problems caused by illegal operations.
Commons Lens
“The Tragedy of the Commons” comes to mind when considering the cannabis industry because like any industry in a capitalist system, there are bound to be some sort of crises that will occur. The most relevant commons in the textbook to this paper is referred to as
‘ingenious flowing commons: Irrigation.”[9] Grow sites are operated on a smaller scale, but the water that sustains them is supposed to be managed collectively by all users of the irrigation network.[10] With the amount of illegal growing sites in Humboldt County it becomes harder to figure out who’s consuming the majority of the water, and thus stunts water conservation progress by environmental groups.[11] On the other side of the coin however, some argue that social relationships around illegal marijuana production and distribution are “more consonant with the values of mutual aid, cooperation, reciprocity, self-management, and the re-distribution of wealth” than legal operations.[12] However pure the intentions of traditional or private growers may be, it is important for the collective population to have the ability to monitor water usage and other natural resources being consumed by marijuana cultivation. If the federal government was to legalize marijuana then perhaps it become less dangerous for conservation groups to investigate these things and resolve conflicts amongst users and governments.[13] I also think it would be able to create a whole new sector of jobs that could stimulate cities, or even rural economies.
Conclusion
Even though cannabis has been around for thousands of years, in the United States the legal industry is still in its infancy. While the tax revenue that comes from legalization is an enticing reason on its own, it may be the environmental benefits that will convince society to pursue it. We like to think that we’ve progressed as a society, but what our current situation reminds me of is the 1920’s and Prohibition, 100 years ago. Marijuana has been perceived by more conservative leaning people of the country as “dangerous” or even “immoral,” and these same things were said during Prohibition about alcohol. What we missed out on during those years was tremendous tax revenue that could’ve possibly helped prevent the Great Depression. As a 26-year-old man, I’ve lived through two recessions now, and now I wonder what sort of economic benefits a vast legal marijuana market would do for every day Americans and financial inequality. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge the negative along with the positive, and that means focusing on the environmental impact on unchecked, illegal growers. Managing our environmental impact is more important than ever, and the need for regulation is more important than ever with destruction of ecosystems. My hope for my state of California is that we continue to innovate and work towards more sustainable systems of managing our natural resources while cultivating a crop that can bring immense economic growth to the state.
Works Cited
Everett, Yvonne. "A Challenge to Socio-Ecological Resilience: Community Based Resource Management Organizations’ Perceptions and Responses to Cannabis Cultivation in Northern California." Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 40 (2018): 89-115. Accessed December 16, 2020. https://www.jstor.org/stable/90023267.
Helmer, Jodi. “The Environmental Downside of Cannabis Cultivation.” JSTOR Daily. June 18, 2019. https://daily.jstor.org/the-environmental-downside-of-cannabis-cultivation/.
Robbins, Paul, John Hintz and Sarah A. Moore. Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, Chapters 4 and 5. (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014), accessed December 16, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Thunderstorm, June. "Smoked Out: The Great Enclosure of the Marijuana Commons." The Baffler, no. 36 (2017): 130-38. Accessed December 16, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44466640.
Warf, Barney. “High Points: An Historical Geography of Cannabis.” Geographical Review 104, no. 4 (October 2014): 414–38. doi:10.1111/j.1931-0846.2014.12038.x.
Endnotes
[1] Barney Warf, “High Points: An Historical Geography of Cannabis,” Geographical Review 104, no. 4 (October 2014), 414, (url provided in works cited).
[2] The section of this paper titled: “A Short History of Cannabis” uses information found in Warf, “High Points” 416, 417, 419, 425, 428, 430-431.
[3] Jodi Helmer, “The Environmental Downside of Cannabis Cultivation,” JSTOR Daily, June 18, 2019, https://daily.jstor.org/the-environmental-downside-of-cannabis-cultivation/.
[4] Yvonne Everett, “A Challenge to Socio-Ecological Resilience: Community Based Resource Management Organizations’ Perceptions and Responses to Cannabis Cultivation in Northern California,” Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 40, 2018, 97, https://www.jstor.org/stable/90023267.
[5] Everett, “Challenge to Socio-Ecological Resilience,” 94.
[6] Helmer, “The Environmental Downside,” JSOTR Daily.
[7] Paul Robbins, John Hintz and Sarah A. Moore, Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, Chapter 5: Environmental Ethics, (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014), 70, accessed December 16, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
[8] Helmer, “The Environmental Downside,” JSOTR Daily.
[9] Paul Robbins, John Hintz and Sarah A. Moore, Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, Chapter 4: Institutions and ‘The Commons,’(Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014), 59, accessed December 16, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
[10] Robbins, et al., “Chapter 4: Institutions and ‘The Commons.,’” 59.
[11] Everett, “Challenge to Socio-Ecological Resilience,” 94.
[12] June Thunderstorm, “Smoked Out: The Great Enclosure of the Marijuana Commons,” The Baffler, no. 36 (Fall 2017), 134, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44466640.pdf?ab_segments=0%252Fbasic_SYC-5187_SYC-5188%252Fcontrol&refreqid=excelsior%3Ac492f10e31a5e504cec925ca9e74d0d.
[13] Robbins, et al., “Chapter 4: Institutions and ‘The Commons.,’” 58.
By Rae Hills
Introduction
The banana is a popular, nutritious, and ridiculously cheap option when it comes to fruit. It originated in Southeast Asia and is now primarily produced in Brazil and India (“All About Bananas”). Like most of the food that is mass-produced today, it has a long, complicated, and somewhat depressing history. This paper will first briefly explain that history, and then delve into economic and political problems in Banana Republics, such as low wages for workers and the general exploitation of Central American countries by the U.S. It will also include a section explaining the environmental damage that banana monoculture has caused throughout the past and present, and touch on potential problems it could cause in the future.
A Short History of Bananas
According to the USDA, bananas are consistently among the most popularly consumed fruits in the U.S. An article by Daniel Stone in National Geographic states that this popularity is a direct result of a phenomenon dating back to the first time we got our hands on them in 1876, at the Centennial International Exhibition celebrating the country’s hundredth birthday. Of course, the banana had been around in one form or another for thousands of years before this, but wasn’t traded much until the fourteenth century, and didn’t arrive in the west until this point in time (“All About Bananas”). Stone explains that the concept of eating an “exotic” fruit, and likely the concept of globalization in general, was so appealing to Americans at the time that the demand for them drove a drastic spike in production and caused the beginning of the problem that later came to be known as Banana Republics.
The demand for bananas continued to grow and in 1885, the United Fruit Company started buying land in Central America to produce more bananas (Stone 2016b). The most popular species of banana at the time was susceptible to a fungus called the Panama disease, so the UFC bought this land to mass-produce only one species of banana, the Cavendish species, which inevitably caused an overall loss of biodiversity (Coates p. 418) (Striffler and Moberg). A more obvious problem with this purchase from the start was the mass deforestation that occurred in the 1890s as a result of the production, primarily in Latin America and the Caribbean (Coates p. 418). However, as the UFC bought more and more land, political issues arising around the fruit became more noticeable as well.
The Central American countries now tasked with banana production were essentially trapped by the U.S., as more land was purchased and more workers were brought in, until in the 1900s the term Banana Republic arose to describe the mess the U.S. had made of countries like Honduras and Guatemala. In the 1950s, the UFC owned about three quarters of Guatemala’s arable land, and about half of Guatemala’s entire economy depended on their trade of bananas. The government there depended on the trade so much that the UFC had control of the government there at multiple points; there were attempts by leaders to free the countries from the U.S.’s power, but to this day, the UFC produces the second most bananas in the world under the new brand name Chiquita (Stone 2016b) (“All About Bananas”).
Politics and Ethics Surrounding Banana Republics
Starting in 1951, a socialistic leader named Jacobo Árbenz began a movement to give the laborers in Guatemala fair wages, taxing the United Fruit Company in the process (Stone). The U.S.’s response to this was brutal in many ways: Firstly, in 1954, President Eisenhower approved a complete coup in Guatemala, led by the Central Intelligence agency, and intentionally kept it a secret as much as he could. Daniel Stone writes that after this coup ended, former leader Jacobo Árbenz was “taken to the airport, stripped to his underwear, paraded before cameras, and exiled to Mexico.” In his place, the CIA installed a new president who would essentially keep this U.S. in power and prevent further progress of Guatemalan independence (Stone 2016b).
Guatemala descended into a state of civil war for the following thirty six years, keeping the UFC, now called Chiquita, in power and still producing bananas for the U.S. and other “developed” countries (Stone 2016b). Following this chaos, a period of time commonly referred to as the banana wars began, and is still in place to this day. In the 1990s this issue was at its worst; many countries (primarily Britain, the U.S., and the countries producing the bananas) disagreed over the best way to produce cheap bananas, disagreed over tariffs, import licenses, and the value of free trade (Cohen). For this reason export laws surrounding the fruit are complicated and ever-changing, but one truth remains. Most workers in the banana industry are underpaid and overworked on large plantations, and unionizing is commonly made impossible by leading companies (“All About Bananas”). Plantation work does not offer much in the way of job security, wages are higher for men than women, accidents causing physical harm are often ignored, and child labor has been reported frequently (Cohen). In Ecuador, Columbia, and Peru, small banana farms with more ethical labor conditions exist, but like many small farms are subject to unstable income compared to transnational companies, depending on demand (“All About Bananas”) (Robbins et. al p. 110).
The effects of a system referred to as the “market response model” are clearly visible in this situation, the search for new sources and increased output allowing for more supply and lower prices, but also more exploitation and in this case, more environmental damage (Robbins et. al 34). While this specific problematic market has slightly diversified since the early 2000s (in 2002, five leading companies produced 70% of bananas, and in 2019, four produced 40%), the same species of banana is still produced in large quantities in only a few countries (“All About Bananas). Something I was surprised to learn from BananaLink’s “All About Bananas,” a British NGO referenced many times in this article and a valuable source of information for the topic, is that only 15-20% of bananas are traded internationally. The website explains that the world’s two largest producers, Brazil and India, export almost no bananas and the fruit instead provides income (although the wages may be unfair) and food security relatively locally. So, while many factors of banana growth contribute to environmental problems like climate change (more details on that in the following section) it’s comforting to know that at least the transport of bananas likely isn’t as damaging as some other internationally traded goods.
Environmental Effects of Banana Monoculture
Unfortunately, transport is not the only part of production that can cause damage to the environment. In her article “Global Issues for Breakfast,” Rebecca Cohen writes that bananas are “a very ecologically demanding species.” The land deforested for banana plantations is clearcut, and because banana plants do not drop their leaves and many harmful chemicals (over 400 types) are used, the soil conditions drop quickly and producers abandon their damaged land to restart the cycle (Cohen). The pesticides used also cause more soil erosion which can easily lead to flooding, and are harmful to the ecosystem of the area and can drive entire species away (Cohen). Additionally, according to the World Wildlife Fund, there is no other agricultural sector that produces as much waste as the banana industry does in their use of plastic for storage and transport of the fruit, regardless of the fact that not much of it is exported (Cohen).
The Future of Bananas
There is another pressing issue that the chemical-ridden monoculture of the banana causes, and it stems from the fact mentioned earlier in this essay that the common banana is all the same cloned species, the Cavendish banana. In his article “Imagining the Banana of the Future,” Daniel Stone writes that “trying to limit the spread of biological material from infecting a cloned species can be like trying to stop a wildfire with a few dozen spray bottles.” This essentially means that any disease that can wipe out one plantation, even one plant, is capable of wiping out the entire Cavendish species. If this can’t be prevented, it could be detrimental to entire economies. The most ridiculous piece of this flawed system is that the most commonly discussed solution to this future problem is to find an alternative species and conduct exactly the same cloning and monoculture, similarly to in the 1960s when the Cavendish species was first popularized (Stone 2016a).
Conclusion
While this essay’s aim was primarily to explain what seems like a uniquely dark history of a banana, I believe it also shows how little we know about our food in general, and how much damage one little fruit can do. This is one of the biggest negatives of globalization. Monoculture and the exploitation of poorer countries for land and labor seem to produce some of the biggest problems in the modern world, and are present and visible in infinitely more ways than I could mention in a few pages about a single food. We have a very small window to fix this before climate change is rumored to be irreversible, a daunting task, particularly with the choices the current people in power make. My hope is that we will see the error of our ways while we can, and that new technology will aid us in a return to all around more sustainable systems, and many, many different species of bananas.
Sources
“All About Bananas: Producers, Where They're Grown & Why They Matter.” Banana Link, www.bananalink.org.uk/all-about-bananas/.
Coates, Peter. “Emerging from the Wilderness (or, from Redwoods to Bananas): Recent Environmental History in the United States and the Rest of the Americas.” Environment and History, vol. 10, no. 4, 2004, pp. 407–438. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20723504. Accessed 17 Dec. 2020.
Cohen, Rebecca. “Global Issues for Breakfast: The Banana Industry and Its Problems FAQ (Cohen Mix).” SCQ, 15 June 2009, www.scq.ubc.ca/global-issues-for-breakfast-the-banana-industry-and-its-problems-faq-cohen-mix/.
Robbins, Paul, et al. Environment and Society: a Critical Introduction. 2nd ed., John Wiley Et Sons, Inc, 2014.
Stone, Daniel. “Imagining the Banana of the Future.” National Geographic, 12 Aug. 2016, www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/food/the-plate/2016/08/imagining-the-banana-of-the-future/.
Stone, Daniel. “Why Are Bananas So Cheap?” National Geographic, 10 Aug. 2016, www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/food/the-plate/2016/08/bananas-are-so-cool/.
Striffler, Steve, and Mark Moberg. Banana Wars: Power, Production, and History in the Americas. 2003, onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/doi/epdf/10.1525/cag.2003.25.2.63.
Introduction
The banana is a popular, nutritious, and ridiculously cheap option when it comes to fruit. It originated in Southeast Asia and is now primarily produced in Brazil and India (“All About Bananas”). Like most of the food that is mass-produced today, it has a long, complicated, and somewhat depressing history. This paper will first briefly explain that history, and then delve into economic and political problems in Banana Republics, such as low wages for workers and the general exploitation of Central American countries by the U.S. It will also include a section explaining the environmental damage that banana monoculture has caused throughout the past and present, and touch on potential problems it could cause in the future.
A Short History of Bananas
According to the USDA, bananas are consistently among the most popularly consumed fruits in the U.S. An article by Daniel Stone in National Geographic states that this popularity is a direct result of a phenomenon dating back to the first time we got our hands on them in 1876, at the Centennial International Exhibition celebrating the country’s hundredth birthday. Of course, the banana had been around in one form or another for thousands of years before this, but wasn’t traded much until the fourteenth century, and didn’t arrive in the west until this point in time (“All About Bananas”). Stone explains that the concept of eating an “exotic” fruit, and likely the concept of globalization in general, was so appealing to Americans at the time that the demand for them drove a drastic spike in production and caused the beginning of the problem that later came to be known as Banana Republics.
The demand for bananas continued to grow and in 1885, the United Fruit Company started buying land in Central America to produce more bananas (Stone 2016b). The most popular species of banana at the time was susceptible to a fungus called the Panama disease, so the UFC bought this land to mass-produce only one species of banana, the Cavendish species, which inevitably caused an overall loss of biodiversity (Coates p. 418) (Striffler and Moberg). A more obvious problem with this purchase from the start was the mass deforestation that occurred in the 1890s as a result of the production, primarily in Latin America and the Caribbean (Coates p. 418). However, as the UFC bought more and more land, political issues arising around the fruit became more noticeable as well.
The Central American countries now tasked with banana production were essentially trapped by the U.S., as more land was purchased and more workers were brought in, until in the 1900s the term Banana Republic arose to describe the mess the U.S. had made of countries like Honduras and Guatemala. In the 1950s, the UFC owned about three quarters of Guatemala’s arable land, and about half of Guatemala’s entire economy depended on their trade of bananas. The government there depended on the trade so much that the UFC had control of the government there at multiple points; there were attempts by leaders to free the countries from the U.S.’s power, but to this day, the UFC produces the second most bananas in the world under the new brand name Chiquita (Stone 2016b) (“All About Bananas”).
Politics and Ethics Surrounding Banana Republics
Starting in 1951, a socialistic leader named Jacobo Árbenz began a movement to give the laborers in Guatemala fair wages, taxing the United Fruit Company in the process (Stone). The U.S.’s response to this was brutal in many ways: Firstly, in 1954, President Eisenhower approved a complete coup in Guatemala, led by the Central Intelligence agency, and intentionally kept it a secret as much as he could. Daniel Stone writes that after this coup ended, former leader Jacobo Árbenz was “taken to the airport, stripped to his underwear, paraded before cameras, and exiled to Mexico.” In his place, the CIA installed a new president who would essentially keep this U.S. in power and prevent further progress of Guatemalan independence (Stone 2016b).
Guatemala descended into a state of civil war for the following thirty six years, keeping the UFC, now called Chiquita, in power and still producing bananas for the U.S. and other “developed” countries (Stone 2016b). Following this chaos, a period of time commonly referred to as the banana wars began, and is still in place to this day. In the 1990s this issue was at its worst; many countries (primarily Britain, the U.S., and the countries producing the bananas) disagreed over the best way to produce cheap bananas, disagreed over tariffs, import licenses, and the value of free trade (Cohen). For this reason export laws surrounding the fruit are complicated and ever-changing, but one truth remains. Most workers in the banana industry are underpaid and overworked on large plantations, and unionizing is commonly made impossible by leading companies (“All About Bananas”). Plantation work does not offer much in the way of job security, wages are higher for men than women, accidents causing physical harm are often ignored, and child labor has been reported frequently (Cohen). In Ecuador, Columbia, and Peru, small banana farms with more ethical labor conditions exist, but like many small farms are subject to unstable income compared to transnational companies, depending on demand (“All About Bananas”) (Robbins et. al p. 110).
The effects of a system referred to as the “market response model” are clearly visible in this situation, the search for new sources and increased output allowing for more supply and lower prices, but also more exploitation and in this case, more environmental damage (Robbins et. al 34). While this specific problematic market has slightly diversified since the early 2000s (in 2002, five leading companies produced 70% of bananas, and in 2019, four produced 40%), the same species of banana is still produced in large quantities in only a few countries (“All About Bananas). Something I was surprised to learn from BananaLink’s “All About Bananas,” a British NGO referenced many times in this article and a valuable source of information for the topic, is that only 15-20% of bananas are traded internationally. The website explains that the world’s two largest producers, Brazil and India, export almost no bananas and the fruit instead provides income (although the wages may be unfair) and food security relatively locally. So, while many factors of banana growth contribute to environmental problems like climate change (more details on that in the following section) it’s comforting to know that at least the transport of bananas likely isn’t as damaging as some other internationally traded goods.
Environmental Effects of Banana Monoculture
Unfortunately, transport is not the only part of production that can cause damage to the environment. In her article “Global Issues for Breakfast,” Rebecca Cohen writes that bananas are “a very ecologically demanding species.” The land deforested for banana plantations is clearcut, and because banana plants do not drop their leaves and many harmful chemicals (over 400 types) are used, the soil conditions drop quickly and producers abandon their damaged land to restart the cycle (Cohen). The pesticides used also cause more soil erosion which can easily lead to flooding, and are harmful to the ecosystem of the area and can drive entire species away (Cohen). Additionally, according to the World Wildlife Fund, there is no other agricultural sector that produces as much waste as the banana industry does in their use of plastic for storage and transport of the fruit, regardless of the fact that not much of it is exported (Cohen).
The Future of Bananas
There is another pressing issue that the chemical-ridden monoculture of the banana causes, and it stems from the fact mentioned earlier in this essay that the common banana is all the same cloned species, the Cavendish banana. In his article “Imagining the Banana of the Future,” Daniel Stone writes that “trying to limit the spread of biological material from infecting a cloned species can be like trying to stop a wildfire with a few dozen spray bottles.” This essentially means that any disease that can wipe out one plantation, even one plant, is capable of wiping out the entire Cavendish species. If this can’t be prevented, it could be detrimental to entire economies. The most ridiculous piece of this flawed system is that the most commonly discussed solution to this future problem is to find an alternative species and conduct exactly the same cloning and monoculture, similarly to in the 1960s when the Cavendish species was first popularized (Stone 2016a).
Conclusion
While this essay’s aim was primarily to explain what seems like a uniquely dark history of a banana, I believe it also shows how little we know about our food in general, and how much damage one little fruit can do. This is one of the biggest negatives of globalization. Monoculture and the exploitation of poorer countries for land and labor seem to produce some of the biggest problems in the modern world, and are present and visible in infinitely more ways than I could mention in a few pages about a single food. We have a very small window to fix this before climate change is rumored to be irreversible, a daunting task, particularly with the choices the current people in power make. My hope is that we will see the error of our ways while we can, and that new technology will aid us in a return to all around more sustainable systems, and many, many different species of bananas.
Sources
“All About Bananas: Producers, Where They're Grown & Why They Matter.” Banana Link, www.bananalink.org.uk/all-about-bananas/.
Coates, Peter. “Emerging from the Wilderness (or, from Redwoods to Bananas): Recent Environmental History in the United States and the Rest of the Americas.” Environment and History, vol. 10, no. 4, 2004, pp. 407–438. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20723504. Accessed 17 Dec. 2020.
Cohen, Rebecca. “Global Issues for Breakfast: The Banana Industry and Its Problems FAQ (Cohen Mix).” SCQ, 15 June 2009, www.scq.ubc.ca/global-issues-for-breakfast-the-banana-industry-and-its-problems-faq-cohen-mix/.
Robbins, Paul, et al. Environment and Society: a Critical Introduction. 2nd ed., John Wiley Et Sons, Inc, 2014.
Stone, Daniel. “Imagining the Banana of the Future.” National Geographic, 12 Aug. 2016, www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/food/the-plate/2016/08/imagining-the-banana-of-the-future/.
Stone, Daniel. “Why Are Bananas So Cheap?” National Geographic, 10 Aug. 2016, www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/food/the-plate/2016/08/bananas-are-so-cool/.
Striffler, Steve, and Mark Moberg. Banana Wars: Power, Production, and History in the Americas. 2003, onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/doi/epdf/10.1525/cag.2003.25.2.63.
Objects of Concern: Christmas Trees
By James Von Tersch
Introduction
The Christmas Tree is an integral part of western cultural tradition during the winter holidays and is today celebrated all over the world. Nowhere is the symbol more popular than in the United States, where up to 30 million Christmas trees are cut annually (AGMRC). Every year, usually the day after Thanksgiving, three-quarters of American families display an evergreen tree in their home, which they usually keep up until the end of December. For most Americans today, that involves buying a real-live Christmas tree, grown for about five years, and then, once used, thrown away. Another popular option is to buy an artificial tree, usually made out of plastic, that is used maybe five to ten years before being tossed in a landfill. Most Americans who celebrate Christmas are now switching to an artificial tree, but many argue over whether it is more beneficial than buying a real tree. Whether you buy a real tree or a fake one, producing and disposing of both have effects on our environment and, consequently, our health. How did the Christmas Tree become so integral to American culture? Why is it that during the month of December, more than three-quarters of Americans today put a decorated evergreen tree in their home?
Short History of the Christmas Tree
The tradition of decorating the home during the winter with branches of evergreen trees goes back long before Christmas, or even Christianity had come into existence. Many ancient cultures in Europe and the Northern Hemisphere worshiped a Sun God and believed that during the winter their Sun God had grown weak. In ancient Roman, Egyptian, and Celtic cultures, there was a festival that marked the winter solstice, the shortest day and longest night of the year. This was celebrated because people knew that after the solstice, days would begin to get longer and bring more sunlight. People believed evergreen plants were special to the Sun God, so they were displayed in homes to ward off evil spirits. There were other reasons the end of December was a good time for celebration, as most beer and wine produced during the year would be finished fermenting, and most cattle would be slaughtered, so they would not have to be fed during the rest of the winter.
When Europe became Christianized, there was a push by the Roman Church to adopt existing pagan festivals and convert them into Christian holidays. At the time, Easter was the only Christian holiday, and Jesus’ birth date was not celebrated because it had never been stated in the bible. By choosing to place Jesus’ birth at the same time as the winter solstice, the Church increased the chances that Christmas would become popularly accepted (Sullivan). However, they did not decide how Christmas should be celebrated. So in many cultures, the same traditions that had been practiced during the original pagan winter solstice festivals were carried on into Christmas. This mainly involved the practice of drinking and celebrating. In medieval times Christmas resembled more of today's Mardi Gras festival, but many unique traditions also persisted. In German countries, the practice of bringing an evergreen tree into the home carried on for centuries. By the 17th century, these trees were decorated with apples, sweets, and candles. Eventually, these trees began to resemble the Christmas tree we know today (Onion).
While the popularity of the Christmas tree spread throughout Europe, the Christmas tree, and even Christmas in general, would take some time to gain popularity in the United States. Early Puritan settlers on the East Coast associated Christmas with the decline of moral and religious values. Back in England, the Puritans had successfully banned Christmas from 1647 to 1660. In the Massachusetts Colony, Christmas was effectively outlawed from 1659 to 1681 and anyone caught celebrating was fined five shillings. Christmas trees and other decorations were especially detested by the Puritans, who believed Christmas was sacred, and should not be associated with pagan traditions.
This began to change in the 19th century when waves of German and Irish immigrants came to the US, among whom Christmas was very popular. In 1851, the first Christmas trees began to be sold commercially. These trees were harvested at random from evergreen forests. While Germans traditionally had only small Christmas trees, usually only one to two feet tall, Americans preferred large trees that reached the ceiling. In 1870, Christmas was declared a federal holiday. As Christmas increased in popularity in the US, coupled with already existing timber harvesting practices, overharvesting of evergreen trees became an issue. Conservationists began to become alarmed over the wasteful practice of households cutting down a tree for Christmas every year. President Theodore Roosevelt even sought to rid the US of the tradition altogether and banned Christmas trees from the White House in 1901. That same year, the first Christmas tree farm was started in New Jersey, when 25,000 Norway Spruces were planted (NCTA). Today, having a Christmas tree in the home during the month of December is a widely popular tradition in the US, and is a popular symbol for Christmas. There are approximately 20-30 million real trees harvested annually, and almost all are grown on tree farms. In 2014, the amount of land in the US that produced Christmas trees reached 178,000 acres. This number has been declining as people have begun to use artificial trees as an alternative, but there is much debate over which is more harmful to the environment to produce.
The first artificial Christmas trees originated in Germany in the 19th century and were originally made of dyed goose feathers, tied to wire branches that were attached to a central wooden rod. This was in response to the overharvesting of the country's evergreen forests. Artificial Christmas trees were developed in the US at the beginning of the 20th century for the same reason. This began with an artificial tree manufactured by the Addis Houseware Company who made their trees from toilet brush bristles that could hold ornaments. These wouldn’t become popular in the US however until the 1950s and 1960s when these trees began to be made from Aluminum. Today, most artificial trees are made from PVC plastic and eighty percent are manufactured in China. Artificial trees have increased in popularity in the United States, while the popularity of buying a real tree has steadily declined. The US Census of Agriculture found that live Christmas tree production fell from 20.8 million trees in 2002 to 15.1 million trees in 2017. Meanwhile, Artificial tree sales from China to the US have steadily increased (Zraick).
Consequences to the Environment and Our Health
To understand what the lasting effect of having a Christmas tree has on our environment, we need to look at the production of both real trees produced from a tree farm, and artificial trees produced in factories from PVC plastic. There is much debate over which has less of an impact on the environment. Studies found that for both artificial and real trees, much of their environmental impact comes from the choices of the consumer. For artificial trees, this comes down to how many years the tree was used before it was disposed of. A customer might reuse an artificial tree for five to ten years, but rarely are they reused after that, eventually ending up in landfills as they cannot be recycled. For the purchaser of a live tree, the impact greatly depends on how that customer chooses to dispose of the tree. Many live trees are tossed in landfills after one year of use, although some take their trees to be recycled into mulch.
Besides how they are disposed of, for real trees, most of the environmental impact comes from their production. First of all, when producing a live Christmas tree it can take up to two years for a seed to produce a sapling. Afterward, the sapling is moved from a nursery bed to a transport bed covered in foil, where it can take two to four years to grow to a small tree. Then, after the transplants are placed in the field, they can take up to five to eleven years before they are harvested. After a tree is harvested, it usually is replaced by the next rotation of trees. Meanwhile, the trees have to be watered, fertilized, trimmed and protected from disease and insects with chemicals. While the trees are being used in the home, usually around eighteen days, they consume roughly sixty-two liters of water each (McAllister).
While real Christmas trees take years to grow, artificial trees take one day to manufacture. This mostly involves the use of PVC constructed together with pieces of steel. The production of PVC emits several carcinogens, a few being dioxins, ethylene dichloride, and vinyl chloride. Lead is also used to make the needles and can have several negative consequences to human health if exposed. The PVC film used to make the tree is produced from PVC resin and then cut and tied to steel wire to form branches. The tree pole, hinges, and metal fastener are made from rolled steel sheets that are powder coated with epoxy resin, while the tree stand and top are made from PVC moldings (Andrei). After being manufactured and assembled in China, the artificial tree is shipped to a harbor and then transported to the US in a container ship before reaching the retailer. These trees are non-recyclable since the plastic, steel, and copper would need to be broken down before being recycled. As a result, after about five to ten years, these trees end up in landfills (Blakemore).
Ethical Question: Should we buy a Christmas tree, real or fake?
For most, Christmas would not be the same without a Christmas tree and all that goes with it. So many other traditions that make up Americans' Christmas celebrations are centered around having a Christmas tree in the home. However, real or fake, both have considerable negative effects on our environment and our own health. Other than their aesthetic and cultural value, from an outside perspective Christmas trees could be seen as an incredible waste of resources. So it begs the question, should we continue to produce Christmas trees?
One easy answer I believe is the use of living Christmas trees that are instead planted, and continually used every year until they grow too large and must be planted outside. If this doesn’t appeal to you, there are still ways you can minimize your environmental effects from using a traditional real tree.
Conclusion
It seems that if you are going to buy a Christmas tree for the holidays, the least environmentally impactful option would be to buy a real tree. This is considering that artificial trees cannot be recycled and only last five to ten years. It also greatly depends on personal choices, like how far your tree was transported from farm to home, and how you choose to dispose of that tree after use. Buying a tree locally, and then recycling that tree into mulch, is the best option if you choose to buy a real harvested tree. The least environmentally impactful option,however, would be to buy a live potted tree, and reuse that tree annually until it is planted outside. This may not be an option for everyone, but if it is, it should at least be considered before buying a dead or artificial tree.
Works Cited
Andrei, Mihai. “Real Vs Artificial Christmas Tree: What the Science Says.” ZME Science, 1 Feb. 2019, www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/real-vs-artificial-christmas-tree-science-says/.
Blakemore, Erin. “Your Christmas Tree Is Lit, but How Hard Does It Hit the Environment?” Popular Science, 23 Dec. 2019, www.popsci.com/story/environment/christmas-tree-environmental-impact/.
“Christmas Trees.” Christmas Trees | Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, www.agmrc.org/commodities-products/forestry/christmas-trees.
“History of Christmas Trees.” National Christmas Tree Association, 29 July 2019, realchristmastrees.org/education/history-of-christmas-trees/.
McAllister, Brad. Life Cycle Assessment: Comparative LCA of the Environmental Impacts of Real Christmas and Artificial Christmas Trees, WAP Sustainability Consulting, Mar. 2018, 8nht63gnxqz2c2hp22a6qjv6-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ACTA_2018_LCA_Study.pdf.
Onion, Amanda. “History of Christmas Trees.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 27 Oct. 2009, www.history.com/topics/christmas/history-of-christmas-trees.
Sullivan, Missy. “History of Christmas.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 27 Oct. 2009, www.history.com/topics/christmas/history-of-christmas.
Zraick, Karen. “Real vs. Artificial Christmas Trees: Which Is the Greener Choice?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Nov. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/business/energy-environment/fake-christmas-tree-vs-real-tree.html.
By James Von Tersch
Introduction
The Christmas Tree is an integral part of western cultural tradition during the winter holidays and is today celebrated all over the world. Nowhere is the symbol more popular than in the United States, where up to 30 million Christmas trees are cut annually (AGMRC). Every year, usually the day after Thanksgiving, three-quarters of American families display an evergreen tree in their home, which they usually keep up until the end of December. For most Americans today, that involves buying a real-live Christmas tree, grown for about five years, and then, once used, thrown away. Another popular option is to buy an artificial tree, usually made out of plastic, that is used maybe five to ten years before being tossed in a landfill. Most Americans who celebrate Christmas are now switching to an artificial tree, but many argue over whether it is more beneficial than buying a real tree. Whether you buy a real tree or a fake one, producing and disposing of both have effects on our environment and, consequently, our health. How did the Christmas Tree become so integral to American culture? Why is it that during the month of December, more than three-quarters of Americans today put a decorated evergreen tree in their home?
Short History of the Christmas Tree
The tradition of decorating the home during the winter with branches of evergreen trees goes back long before Christmas, or even Christianity had come into existence. Many ancient cultures in Europe and the Northern Hemisphere worshiped a Sun God and believed that during the winter their Sun God had grown weak. In ancient Roman, Egyptian, and Celtic cultures, there was a festival that marked the winter solstice, the shortest day and longest night of the year. This was celebrated because people knew that after the solstice, days would begin to get longer and bring more sunlight. People believed evergreen plants were special to the Sun God, so they were displayed in homes to ward off evil spirits. There were other reasons the end of December was a good time for celebration, as most beer and wine produced during the year would be finished fermenting, and most cattle would be slaughtered, so they would not have to be fed during the rest of the winter.
When Europe became Christianized, there was a push by the Roman Church to adopt existing pagan festivals and convert them into Christian holidays. At the time, Easter was the only Christian holiday, and Jesus’ birth date was not celebrated because it had never been stated in the bible. By choosing to place Jesus’ birth at the same time as the winter solstice, the Church increased the chances that Christmas would become popularly accepted (Sullivan). However, they did not decide how Christmas should be celebrated. So in many cultures, the same traditions that had been practiced during the original pagan winter solstice festivals were carried on into Christmas. This mainly involved the practice of drinking and celebrating. In medieval times Christmas resembled more of today's Mardi Gras festival, but many unique traditions also persisted. In German countries, the practice of bringing an evergreen tree into the home carried on for centuries. By the 17th century, these trees were decorated with apples, sweets, and candles. Eventually, these trees began to resemble the Christmas tree we know today (Onion).
While the popularity of the Christmas tree spread throughout Europe, the Christmas tree, and even Christmas in general, would take some time to gain popularity in the United States. Early Puritan settlers on the East Coast associated Christmas with the decline of moral and religious values. Back in England, the Puritans had successfully banned Christmas from 1647 to 1660. In the Massachusetts Colony, Christmas was effectively outlawed from 1659 to 1681 and anyone caught celebrating was fined five shillings. Christmas trees and other decorations were especially detested by the Puritans, who believed Christmas was sacred, and should not be associated with pagan traditions.
This began to change in the 19th century when waves of German and Irish immigrants came to the US, among whom Christmas was very popular. In 1851, the first Christmas trees began to be sold commercially. These trees were harvested at random from evergreen forests. While Germans traditionally had only small Christmas trees, usually only one to two feet tall, Americans preferred large trees that reached the ceiling. In 1870, Christmas was declared a federal holiday. As Christmas increased in popularity in the US, coupled with already existing timber harvesting practices, overharvesting of evergreen trees became an issue. Conservationists began to become alarmed over the wasteful practice of households cutting down a tree for Christmas every year. President Theodore Roosevelt even sought to rid the US of the tradition altogether and banned Christmas trees from the White House in 1901. That same year, the first Christmas tree farm was started in New Jersey, when 25,000 Norway Spruces were planted (NCTA). Today, having a Christmas tree in the home during the month of December is a widely popular tradition in the US, and is a popular symbol for Christmas. There are approximately 20-30 million real trees harvested annually, and almost all are grown on tree farms. In 2014, the amount of land in the US that produced Christmas trees reached 178,000 acres. This number has been declining as people have begun to use artificial trees as an alternative, but there is much debate over which is more harmful to the environment to produce.
The first artificial Christmas trees originated in Germany in the 19th century and were originally made of dyed goose feathers, tied to wire branches that were attached to a central wooden rod. This was in response to the overharvesting of the country's evergreen forests. Artificial Christmas trees were developed in the US at the beginning of the 20th century for the same reason. This began with an artificial tree manufactured by the Addis Houseware Company who made their trees from toilet brush bristles that could hold ornaments. These wouldn’t become popular in the US however until the 1950s and 1960s when these trees began to be made from Aluminum. Today, most artificial trees are made from PVC plastic and eighty percent are manufactured in China. Artificial trees have increased in popularity in the United States, while the popularity of buying a real tree has steadily declined. The US Census of Agriculture found that live Christmas tree production fell from 20.8 million trees in 2002 to 15.1 million trees in 2017. Meanwhile, Artificial tree sales from China to the US have steadily increased (Zraick).
Consequences to the Environment and Our Health
To understand what the lasting effect of having a Christmas tree has on our environment, we need to look at the production of both real trees produced from a tree farm, and artificial trees produced in factories from PVC plastic. There is much debate over which has less of an impact on the environment. Studies found that for both artificial and real trees, much of their environmental impact comes from the choices of the consumer. For artificial trees, this comes down to how many years the tree was used before it was disposed of. A customer might reuse an artificial tree for five to ten years, but rarely are they reused after that, eventually ending up in landfills as they cannot be recycled. For the purchaser of a live tree, the impact greatly depends on how that customer chooses to dispose of the tree. Many live trees are tossed in landfills after one year of use, although some take their trees to be recycled into mulch.
Besides how they are disposed of, for real trees, most of the environmental impact comes from their production. First of all, when producing a live Christmas tree it can take up to two years for a seed to produce a sapling. Afterward, the sapling is moved from a nursery bed to a transport bed covered in foil, where it can take two to four years to grow to a small tree. Then, after the transplants are placed in the field, they can take up to five to eleven years before they are harvested. After a tree is harvested, it usually is replaced by the next rotation of trees. Meanwhile, the trees have to be watered, fertilized, trimmed and protected from disease and insects with chemicals. While the trees are being used in the home, usually around eighteen days, they consume roughly sixty-two liters of water each (McAllister).
While real Christmas trees take years to grow, artificial trees take one day to manufacture. This mostly involves the use of PVC constructed together with pieces of steel. The production of PVC emits several carcinogens, a few being dioxins, ethylene dichloride, and vinyl chloride. Lead is also used to make the needles and can have several negative consequences to human health if exposed. The PVC film used to make the tree is produced from PVC resin and then cut and tied to steel wire to form branches. The tree pole, hinges, and metal fastener are made from rolled steel sheets that are powder coated with epoxy resin, while the tree stand and top are made from PVC moldings (Andrei). After being manufactured and assembled in China, the artificial tree is shipped to a harbor and then transported to the US in a container ship before reaching the retailer. These trees are non-recyclable since the plastic, steel, and copper would need to be broken down before being recycled. As a result, after about five to ten years, these trees end up in landfills (Blakemore).
Ethical Question: Should we buy a Christmas tree, real or fake?
For most, Christmas would not be the same without a Christmas tree and all that goes with it. So many other traditions that make up Americans' Christmas celebrations are centered around having a Christmas tree in the home. However, real or fake, both have considerable negative effects on our environment and our own health. Other than their aesthetic and cultural value, from an outside perspective Christmas trees could be seen as an incredible waste of resources. So it begs the question, should we continue to produce Christmas trees?
One easy answer I believe is the use of living Christmas trees that are instead planted, and continually used every year until they grow too large and must be planted outside. If this doesn’t appeal to you, there are still ways you can minimize your environmental effects from using a traditional real tree.
Conclusion
It seems that if you are going to buy a Christmas tree for the holidays, the least environmentally impactful option would be to buy a real tree. This is considering that artificial trees cannot be recycled and only last five to ten years. It also greatly depends on personal choices, like how far your tree was transported from farm to home, and how you choose to dispose of that tree after use. Buying a tree locally, and then recycling that tree into mulch, is the best option if you choose to buy a real harvested tree. The least environmentally impactful option,however, would be to buy a live potted tree, and reuse that tree annually until it is planted outside. This may not be an option for everyone, but if it is, it should at least be considered before buying a dead or artificial tree.
Works Cited
Andrei, Mihai. “Real Vs Artificial Christmas Tree: What the Science Says.” ZME Science, 1 Feb. 2019, www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/real-vs-artificial-christmas-tree-science-says/.
Blakemore, Erin. “Your Christmas Tree Is Lit, but How Hard Does It Hit the Environment?” Popular Science, 23 Dec. 2019, www.popsci.com/story/environment/christmas-tree-environmental-impact/.
“Christmas Trees.” Christmas Trees | Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, www.agmrc.org/commodities-products/forestry/christmas-trees.
“History of Christmas Trees.” National Christmas Tree Association, 29 July 2019, realchristmastrees.org/education/history-of-christmas-trees/.
McAllister, Brad. Life Cycle Assessment: Comparative LCA of the Environmental Impacts of Real Christmas and Artificial Christmas Trees, WAP Sustainability Consulting, Mar. 2018, 8nht63gnxqz2c2hp22a6qjv6-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ACTA_2018_LCA_Study.pdf.
Onion, Amanda. “History of Christmas Trees.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 27 Oct. 2009, www.history.com/topics/christmas/history-of-christmas-trees.
Sullivan, Missy. “History of Christmas.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 27 Oct. 2009, www.history.com/topics/christmas/history-of-christmas.
Zraick, Karen. “Real vs. Artificial Christmas Trees: Which Is the Greener Choice?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Nov. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/business/energy-environment/fake-christmas-tree-vs-real-tree.html.
by Cortland Navarette
Introduction
You sit in awe as the cars fly by at over 200 miles per hour, battling for position mere inches from each other. You look up, and see a helicopter flying by, trying to keep up with the cars. You look down from your seat in the stands, and see hundreds of crew members running back and forth, installing new tires and making calculations. Above the pit lane you see many wealthy business people and celebrities enjoying themselves. You look behind the stands and see the large trucks full of all the equipment the teams need for this week’s race. You are amazed at how much has gone into the weekend, all for it to be gone tomorrow, headed off for another country. It is said that the first auto race happened at the creation of the second car. It is in human nature to compete, and auto racing is no exception. Formula One, a racing series, stands at the top as the pinnacle of technological development and speed. Teams spend millions of dollars designing their cars and transporting themselves all over the world. Formula One is special because its cars are designed and built entirely by its teams, also called ‘constructors’. Because the cars are designed and built by the teams, the ones with the most money are the ones that win. Races take place all over the world, typically in very luxurious cities like Singapore, Abu Dhabi, and Monaco. During races, teams go through hundreds of tires and thousands of gallons of fuel. Most of the drivers come from millionaire or billionaire families, who can support them in their early careers and also bring money to the teams that hire them. Because of how much money is involved, Formula One has come to stand for luxury and excess. It is a world filled with high-end brands, private jets, and the consumption of resources, and it promotes unsustainable practices as desirable.
History
Formula cars are open-wheeled, open-cockpit, single-seat vehicles. These regulations create a car that is lightweight and easy to escape from, but also give the cars their iconic look, which is based in tradition. The ‘formula’ in Formula One is the rules that the car must be built to. The modern format of Formula One began in 1950, but its origins reach back to the 1920s. Now, it has grown to be the most popular racing series world-wide. Since its inception it has been a development series; while certain parts of the cars are regulated, most of them are designed by the teams. Seasons typically contain twenty races, and a team will travel with up to eighty people from race to race. Many of the teams belong to large automobile manufacturers, like Ferrari or Mercedes, who use their research from Formula One to implement new technologies into their production vehicles.
Environmental Ethics
Formula One is not an environmentally ethical endeavour. But should it have to be? And if it is not, then should it be gotten rid of? These are the questions that environmental ethics asks. Because Formula One reaches so many people and because it represents the best of technology and ourselves, I believe that it has the duty and the responsibility to be an environmentally ethical sport. If it fails to meet this challenge, than it cannot be considered ethical moving forward Formula One is inherently bad for the environment. In 2018, Formula One’s total carbon emissions were 256,551 tons (Edmondson). Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and a key driver of global warming (Environment and Society 26). Forty-five percent of these emissions were due to traveling and transporting the cars and teams to all the races (Edmondson). Drivers fly by private jet between races. A typical commercial jet may burn one gallon of fuel per second, but that it is spread across up to 500 people (Science). A private jet only carries a few. Formula One cars are covered in advertisements. Many of these promote fashion brands and petroleum companies. The fashion industry is Earth’s second largest polluter (Sustainyourstyle). Fashion factories use large amounts of water, mixed with chemicals and heavy metals, to dye their clothes. Because they often operate in countries with little environmental regulations, they dump their untreated wastewater into rivers. Shell Oil, a key sponsor for Formula One, has been guilty of corruption and exploitation in Nigeria, where their operations resulted in uncleaned oil spills, which have caused damages to human and environmental health (FoEEurope). Because Formula One is such a popular sport and revered by many, it is unethical for it to promote a lifestyle that is damaging to the environment as something to be held in high-esteem. Furthermore, Formula One’s environmental impacts itself are not something to be ignored, as the automobile and transportation industries remain key contributors to climate change.
Political Economy
A political-economy lense of looking at the relationship between society and nature “stresses that the roots of social and environmental crises are in the economy” (Environment and Society 157). Of course, it seems almost impossible that capitalism can create a positive relation between society and nature. Its competitive nature and prioritization of profits creates many problems, many of which Formula One proudly displays. Formula One is itself a microcosm of capitalism. Its teams are not on equal footing, which results in the rich ones getting richer as they win more races, and the poorer teams struggling for points. Furthermore, Formula One is a display for all the modern results of capitalism, like fast fashion and expensive watches. Unfortunately, this luxury and convenience often comes at the cost of environmental damage and the exploitation of marginalized groups. Formula One takes place all over the world, in cities deemed as models for the rest of the world. It promotes cities like Singapore as examples of the modern age, when in reality, Singapore’s dredging projects to increase its land mass are destroying the environment and ecosystems of Cambodia (Lost World). Furthermore, Formula One takes money from many corrupt governments to bring their races there and show these cities in a positive light (the Drive). Baku, a city in Azerbaijan, which has a government that tortures and imprisons those who speak against them (HRW Azerbaijan), is home to a Formula One race. So is Bahrain, which has a “dire” human and civil rights situation (HRW Bahrain). Formula One and these governments both see it in their best interests to hide or disregard their problems and instead focus on the excess and pageantry created by their races being hosted in these spectacular cities, for the sake of profits and their economies. Unfortunately, this encourages environmental and human disregard, which is exacerbated during the weeks of the races. Therefore, Formula One is representing the value of entertainment for wealthy people as being more important than the health and well-being of people from countries that exploit others and damage the environment.
Conclusion
Formula One represents the best of human capabilities, where engineers work tirelessly to extract every bit of performance they can within the regulations, and drivers push their cars to the limits to shave mere milliseconds off each other’s times. This is why people love to watch it. However, Formula One is unnecessary. It serves little purpose other than as entertainment, for which other forms exist. It has become a medium to promote unsustainable lifestyles and corporate power over the environment. In the future, can globetrotting, resource consuming sports like Formula One ethically and responsibly exist? Or will our entertainment need to be rethought for the sake of our planet?
Introduction
You sit in awe as the cars fly by at over 200 miles per hour, battling for position mere inches from each other. You look up, and see a helicopter flying by, trying to keep up with the cars. You look down from your seat in the stands, and see hundreds of crew members running back and forth, installing new tires and making calculations. Above the pit lane you see many wealthy business people and celebrities enjoying themselves. You look behind the stands and see the large trucks full of all the equipment the teams need for this week’s race. You are amazed at how much has gone into the weekend, all for it to be gone tomorrow, headed off for another country. It is said that the first auto race happened at the creation of the second car. It is in human nature to compete, and auto racing is no exception. Formula One, a racing series, stands at the top as the pinnacle of technological development and speed. Teams spend millions of dollars designing their cars and transporting themselves all over the world. Formula One is special because its cars are designed and built entirely by its teams, also called ‘constructors’. Because the cars are designed and built by the teams, the ones with the most money are the ones that win. Races take place all over the world, typically in very luxurious cities like Singapore, Abu Dhabi, and Monaco. During races, teams go through hundreds of tires and thousands of gallons of fuel. Most of the drivers come from millionaire or billionaire families, who can support them in their early careers and also bring money to the teams that hire them. Because of how much money is involved, Formula One has come to stand for luxury and excess. It is a world filled with high-end brands, private jets, and the consumption of resources, and it promotes unsustainable practices as desirable.
History
Formula cars are open-wheeled, open-cockpit, single-seat vehicles. These regulations create a car that is lightweight and easy to escape from, but also give the cars their iconic look, which is based in tradition. The ‘formula’ in Formula One is the rules that the car must be built to. The modern format of Formula One began in 1950, but its origins reach back to the 1920s. Now, it has grown to be the most popular racing series world-wide. Since its inception it has been a development series; while certain parts of the cars are regulated, most of them are designed by the teams. Seasons typically contain twenty races, and a team will travel with up to eighty people from race to race. Many of the teams belong to large automobile manufacturers, like Ferrari or Mercedes, who use their research from Formula One to implement new technologies into their production vehicles.
Environmental Ethics
Formula One is not an environmentally ethical endeavour. But should it have to be? And if it is not, then should it be gotten rid of? These are the questions that environmental ethics asks. Because Formula One reaches so many people and because it represents the best of technology and ourselves, I believe that it has the duty and the responsibility to be an environmentally ethical sport. If it fails to meet this challenge, than it cannot be considered ethical moving forward Formula One is inherently bad for the environment. In 2018, Formula One’s total carbon emissions were 256,551 tons (Edmondson). Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and a key driver of global warming (Environment and Society 26). Forty-five percent of these emissions were due to traveling and transporting the cars and teams to all the races (Edmondson). Drivers fly by private jet between races. A typical commercial jet may burn one gallon of fuel per second, but that it is spread across up to 500 people (Science). A private jet only carries a few. Formula One cars are covered in advertisements. Many of these promote fashion brands and petroleum companies. The fashion industry is Earth’s second largest polluter (Sustainyourstyle). Fashion factories use large amounts of water, mixed with chemicals and heavy metals, to dye their clothes. Because they often operate in countries with little environmental regulations, they dump their untreated wastewater into rivers. Shell Oil, a key sponsor for Formula One, has been guilty of corruption and exploitation in Nigeria, where their operations resulted in uncleaned oil spills, which have caused damages to human and environmental health (FoEEurope). Because Formula One is such a popular sport and revered by many, it is unethical for it to promote a lifestyle that is damaging to the environment as something to be held in high-esteem. Furthermore, Formula One’s environmental impacts itself are not something to be ignored, as the automobile and transportation industries remain key contributors to climate change.
Political Economy
A political-economy lense of looking at the relationship between society and nature “stresses that the roots of social and environmental crises are in the economy” (Environment and Society 157). Of course, it seems almost impossible that capitalism can create a positive relation between society and nature. Its competitive nature and prioritization of profits creates many problems, many of which Formula One proudly displays. Formula One is itself a microcosm of capitalism. Its teams are not on equal footing, which results in the rich ones getting richer as they win more races, and the poorer teams struggling for points. Furthermore, Formula One is a display for all the modern results of capitalism, like fast fashion and expensive watches. Unfortunately, this luxury and convenience often comes at the cost of environmental damage and the exploitation of marginalized groups. Formula One takes place all over the world, in cities deemed as models for the rest of the world. It promotes cities like Singapore as examples of the modern age, when in reality, Singapore’s dredging projects to increase its land mass are destroying the environment and ecosystems of Cambodia (Lost World). Furthermore, Formula One takes money from many corrupt governments to bring their races there and show these cities in a positive light (the Drive). Baku, a city in Azerbaijan, which has a government that tortures and imprisons those who speak against them (HRW Azerbaijan), is home to a Formula One race. So is Bahrain, which has a “dire” human and civil rights situation (HRW Bahrain). Formula One and these governments both see it in their best interests to hide or disregard their problems and instead focus on the excess and pageantry created by their races being hosted in these spectacular cities, for the sake of profits and their economies. Unfortunately, this encourages environmental and human disregard, which is exacerbated during the weeks of the races. Therefore, Formula One is representing the value of entertainment for wealthy people as being more important than the health and well-being of people from countries that exploit others and damage the environment.
Conclusion
Formula One represents the best of human capabilities, where engineers work tirelessly to extract every bit of performance they can within the regulations, and drivers push their cars to the limits to shave mere milliseconds off each other’s times. This is why people love to watch it. However, Formula One is unnecessary. It serves little purpose other than as entertainment, for which other forms exist. It has become a medium to promote unsustainable lifestyles and corporate power over the environment. In the future, can globetrotting, resource consuming sports like Formula One ethically and responsibly exist? Or will our entertainment need to be rethought for the sake of our planet?
By Pedro Moreno
Introduction
Pretend that you are stuck in traffic with the air conditioning on, windows down, and yet it still burning hot. To make it worse, you begin to smell all the emission that is being released by all the vehicles around. You are looking around, and you see all these factories releasing black smoke into the air. You may not think about it for too long but all the air around you is being polluted by the carbon emission released from the vehicles. Since the majority of vehicles, machineries, and engines require diesel as a form of energy, we can substitute the diesel oil with a more environmental friendly fuel source that is commonly used when cooking.
History of Biodiesel Fuel
Biodiesel fuel was first created in the 1890’s by an inventor and scientist named Rudolph Diesel. He was the first to design the diesel engine which quickly became the first choice for many industries. Dr. Rudolph Diesel was trying to develop a source of energy coming from vegetable oil, peanut oil and coal dust [1]. Dr. Diesel perfected a method that formed the creation of peanut oil used as fuel for his diesel engine [7]. His concept of creating this form of renewable energy was not very popular during his time until recent years.
Biodiesel is the most diverse fuel which can be created from soy bean oils, animal oils, and other types of cooking oil [8]. Biodiesel is produced through a process that converts the fats and oils of the plant or animal into fatty acids methyl esters by using the lipids to react with short-chain alcohols along with the presence of a catalyst [3]. The final product of this reaction are large amount of biodiesel and a small amount of glycerin, a sugar that can be used in pharmaceutical and cosmetics [3].
Environmental Ethics
As of today diesel engines are the most common used engines around the world with its fuel being diesel, it makes up around 80% of the worlds energy use [6]. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in 2019 around 47.2 billon gallons of diesel were used in a single year within the United States [8]. Each gallon of diesel releases around 19.64 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere [8]. The burning of fossil fuels is one of the biggest factors that contributes to global warming causing wildfires, melting of ice in the artic and around antarctica, more hurricanes, tornados and other natural events. These large amounts of carbon dioxide accumulated in the atmosphere causing temperatures around the world to increase.
Switching to an alternative fuel, such as biodiesel, would not only will reduce a significant amount of carbon emission but also recycles the carbon that is already in the atmosphere. This will also be a huge positive step when it comes to environmental justice. For many decades people have been aware of global warming but have not done much about. Switching fuel to biodiesel will decrease carbon emissions, air pollution, minimize habitat destruction and the transportation of fossil fuel [6]. We have seen on the news of the many oil spills ships have when transporting fuel across the oceans. The fuel spreads across the ocean at a much faster rate due to the sea current affect the wildlife surrounding it. Many habitats and sacred land from the indegiounous people have been destroyed by trying to transport the fuel through pipes. These pipes break which causes the oil to leak to the land and becomes polluted. Trees, plants and many other organisms have the right to have clean air without any pollutants caused by human activities. Tree, plants, terrestrial and marine organisms may not have the ability to communicate with us so it is up to the people to stand up and promote for a more environmental friendly fuel which will reduce the amount of pollution in the air and in the water.
Markets and Commodities
Human population growth keeps increasing year after year and eventually there will be a point where some resources have been depleted. Fossil fuel is an example of a finite resource due to taking billions of years to develop. There are other forms of renewable energy such as solar, electrical, geothermal, hydropower but the one that can outmatch the majority of them is the fuel biodiesel. Each energy requires different forms of energy such as wind, sun, water and the Earth itself, however not all places around the world have access to sunlight, water, or wind. Meaning that they would rely on a different energy source such a diesel. Diesel fuel can be substituted for biodiesel to stop the contributing of carbon emission.
Throughout the recent years, there has been market based policy solutions used to solve environmental problems and for better or worse these policy solutions use concepts of incentives, ownership, pricing, and trading when addressing the environmental issues [5] In this situation, biodiesel would solve or minimize many of the environmental problems that are related to carbon emission, provided a wide range of ownerships and pricing since it is a fuel that can be extracted from a variety of vegetables there would be options to select the type of fuel, and would provide newer jobs for the people. The fuel would create many ownerships which can provide a lower cost, compete with big diesel companies and prevent monopolies from forming. On top of that, there would be many more jobs opening ranging from biochemist who create the fuel to the truck drivers who transport the fuel to gas stations. Cooking oil and animal fats are pretty much found worldwide so this type of fuel could be manufactured in anywhere in the world.
Conclusion
Human relationship with nature has shifted throughout history. Some people find the land sacred or just a beautiful sight to enjoy and do whatever they can to preserve that land while other believe that they have the right to use nature in anyway that is seem beneficial [5]. In both of these lenses, the environment can be used to produce a fuel that won’t contribute to new carbon emission and is beneficial to human usage. As of now, diesel fuel is the most used fuel in the world and biodiesel is not popular enough to complete with it for now. It is important to acknowledge that new carbon dioxide is being released daily contributing more to global warming and affecting the world drastically. Switching to an alternative fuel, biodiesel, can drastically change the quality of air within just a couple of years but that reality won’t be happening anytime soon.
References
Diesel Technology Forum, Diesel Technology Forum ,www.dieselforum.org/news -and-resources/recent-news.
[1] “Biodiesel Technical Information” (PDF). www.biodiesel.org. Retrieved 15 December 2020.
[2] “History of Biodiesel Fuel.” Pacific Biodiesel, Pacific Biodiesel, 12 Jan. 2020, www.biodiesel.com/history-of-biodiesel-fuel/.
[3] Huang, Daming, et al. “Biodiesel: an Alternative to Conventional Fuel.” Energy Procedia, Elsevier, 17 Mar. 2012, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610212002974.
Robbins, Paul. (2014). Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, Environmental Ethics.
[5] Robbins, Paul. (2014). Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, Markets and Commodities.
[6] “The End of Fossil Fuels.” Ecotricity, www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/energy- independence/the-end-of-fossil-fuels.
[7] "The tumultuous history of the diesel engine". Autoblog. Retrieved 15 December 2020.
[8] “U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Biomass-Based Diesel - Biodiesel Explained - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Energy Information Administration, 22 June 2020, www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biofuels/biodiesel.php.
“Why Biodiesel.” Biodiesel, Better.Cleaner. Now!, National Biodiesel Board, www.biodiesel.org/what-is-biodiesel/why-biodiesel.
Introduction
Whether you are comfortable with the idea or not, everyone knows a family member, friend, coworker, or your own self, that menstruates at least once a month from ages as young as 8-15 until they are about 45-55 (“Menstruation (Menstruation Cycle, Period)”). This only means that you, or they, will inevitably find use in menstruation products. As of today, we see the industry for feminine hygiene and period products booming, since it is a necessity, with reports estimated to be worth $15 billion and growing (“Feminine Hygiene Products”). However, there is a problematic truth that comes from menstruation products that affects humans globally through environmental waste, personal risks and hazards, costs, accessibility, and the overall ethics of the situation.
A Short History
Menstruation products are items that are used during a monthly menstruation cycle, often referred to as a period, which lasts anywhere between 2-7 days (“Menstruation (Menstruation Cycle, Period)”). Menstruation products range from a variety of items including menstrual cups; which are cups made of different materials that are worn inside of the body to collect fluid, to more popular items such as disposable pads; which are worn outside the body using an adhesive strip to fix the product to underwear, made up of various layers (Peberdy et al.), and tampons; which are inserted into the body for fluid absorption, where each of these products is recommended for no longer than 7-8 hour use, if needed. According to the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, products mocking the same concept as tampons were in medical use from as early as the 1920s to stop bleeding in deep wounds, and used for women later. We now see these products in widespread use globally, where tampons are the preferred choice of product within Western Europe and the U.S. (Peberdy et al.). Along with this, to get a general idea of what products are being used and how big this industry is, a study reports that, “from 1990s-2000s 50 –86% of women use tampons; 62–73% of women use pads; 75% of women use panty liners; 4–39% of women use feminine sprays; 10–15% of women use feminine wipes; 4% of women use feminine powder; 23% of women use over-the counter anti-itch creams; 15–32% of women douche.” (Scranton). This industry is not only profiting over normal, uncontrollable bodily functions through different products, but making them so profitable that they are not accessible to everyone, while also shaming and creating social norms and judgements for whatever product is more comfortable to each individual.
Risks and Hazards
One of the main concerns with these products is how safe popular items, such as tampons and pads, actually are for their intended monthly use over a duration of years. Research suggests that for tampons, about 100 million women around the world use them, and about 11,000 are used within their lifetime (Peberdy et al.), and pad products are even more popular than this. Since these products are going to be used regularly over a duration of years, we have to put our trust into how they are made and what exactly is going into them, since they will be placed in and near a vulnerable, sensitive area. Moreover, one study focuses on what ingredients and chemicals are found within these products, since specifically the skin within a vulva has a high absorption and permeability where anything harmful can be simply absorbed and spread into the body (Chong-Jing and Kurunthachalam). In this study, it was stated that, “DMP, DEP, DBP, DIBP, and DEHP were the major phthalate diesters found in 100% of pads, panty liners, tampons, and wipes, as well as more than one paraben was found in all feminine hygiene products, where overall Pads, panty liners, and tampons accounted for a major share of phthalate, paraben, and bisphenol exposures in American women.”(Chong-Jing and Kurunthachalam). Where another article states that the dioxins and phthalates, which are known carcinogens, within tampons are being linked from their initial production process (Leithe). It is no shock that these chemicals within menstrual products ingredients are harmful and have no purpose of being in or around that area, but when women have no other choice, it then becomes extremely hard to determine the risks and hazards associated with them, even when the results of faulty products are infections, diseases, and organ damage, including kidney, heart, and liver failure (“The Facts on Tampons- and How to Use Them Safely”). From Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction (Robbins et al.), we have to acknowledge this risk as a culture, and how the social norms outweigh the risk involved with these very potentially dangerous products. The text highlights how cultures influence the importance, approaches, and perspectives of some risks, which we see with menstrual products since speaking of a menstrual cycle is still seen as a taboo topic that women should keep to themselves. This socio-cultural “norm” in turn harms women, since there is no room to speak out on this in the first place, resulting in this hazard of ingredients and shady production of personal products deemed not important. As a society we must shift this cultural theory of taboo topics women feel ashamed of, and focus on the actual quality control. Another risk women have to face is the famously known TSS, or Toxic Shock Syndrome. Toxic shock syndrome is defined as a serious disease that involves fever, shock, and problems with several body organs, caused by toxins produced when a tampon is left in for longer durations of time (Toxic shock syndrome). This is one commonly known serious effect of menstrual products that women have to remain mindful of when using, attributing to the risk and hazards of these products and their ingredients.
Environmental Ethics
Along with the personal health risk from menstruation products, there are also environmental concerns since they are a disposable, one time use product. These products are made to “hold up” for their intended use, however this then becomes an issue when disposing of them. As previously stated, it was estimated that a single woman will more or less use about 11,000 tampons within their lifetime (Peberdy et al.), which directly correlates to 11,000 one use products polluting our environment. When looking at just tampons, they come enclosed in plastic wrapping, a plastic applicator, and the cotton/chemical filled product within. For pads, they are also enclosed in plastic wrapping, adhesive strips and more cotton/ chemically fragranced materials. Just examining these products shows how unsustainable and polluting they are. Further, not only are the plastic components of the product and its packaging known to never completely biodegrade, but research also estimates that specifically, just one pad product can take 500-800 years to breakdown (Peberdy et al.). These one use products end up in landfills, oceans, and alongside with every other single use- polluting product on this planet, where it is stated that, “the Marine Conservation Society reported an increase in sanitary products, including menstrual products and wet wipes, found during beach cleans in 2017, with nine plastic applicators found per km on UK beaches” (Peberdy et al.). As a result of these products increasingly being found on beaches, including locations outside of the U.S, we are starting to see items such as the plastic applicator of tampons, being found inside the stomachs of seabirds (Peberdy et al.). This then further contributes to global environmental issues of one use plastic pollution in oceans and wildlife, where films such as ‘Albatross’ highlight how detrimental one use plastics are, and how they end up in locations far away from where they started, and in the stomachs of seabirds resulting in deaths (“Albatross”). The type of pollution that menstrual products contribute to only worsens this problem, since we can imagine a woman's 11,000 tampons in her lifetime will become a pollutant fate of a seabird, or fish, mistaking it for food. Moreover, since some brands of tampons now contain plastic within them (Peberdy et al.) we can assume that the entire product will be extremely difficult to break down or degrade if given the chance. Microplastics are the reality of what these products face, since one of the main ingredients, Polyethylene is known to breakdown into smaller pieces if introduced to light (Peberdy et al.), which will take a great length of time to do so only resulting in a more polluted planet. From an environmental ethics perspective, these necessary products help women during an uncomfortable time, but also contribute to large amounts of one use waste which eventually results in microplastics, that will continue harming wildlife and the planet as a whole. This then turns into a consideration of what products one should utilize for a more sustainable option, however, cost and availability are clear obstacles that deter women from these choices.
Political Economy/Ethics
The main factors deterring women from more sustainable options of menstrual products is the initial cost, accessibility, and availability of these products in the first place. Disposable options are extremely cheaper compared to reusables, but looking deeper, a study found that between July of 2017 and March 2018, “64 percent of the women had been unable to afford period products during the previous year and 21 percent experienced this problem on a monthly basis. Almost half had times during the past year when they had to choose between food and period products.” (Carroll). Within the U.S., menstrual products are seen as a “luxury item” that women are expected to pay for and consistently provide for themselves, when they are a basic human need. Women in tight financial situations are having to choose between necessary items, not including homeless women who have to worry about just basic access to these, which not only affects their physical wellbeing of not having them, but their emotional dignity of feeling shamed for not being able to afford these products. On top of this, there is an additional tax on menstruation products in the U.S since they are viewed as a “luxury” where it is reported that 35 states impose this tax (Smith). This is referred to as ‘period poverty’, but has not changed dramatically within the United States because these products are seen as a commodity of profit in our capitalistic society. The market would argue that this is a $15 billion business that cannot be spared for those who cannot access them, and in the eyes of a political economy and Capitalism, creates jobs and contributes to the economy. However, we must acknowledge the ethics behind politicizing and profiting off of a woman's normal bodily functions, and how we determine the importance of money when there are humans suffering from the lack of accessibility of this essential, as well as how we as a society continue to deem this as an issue that is not as important. Further, this issue continues and worsens outside of the U.S., where a study in Uganda schools showed period poverty that affects young women, also affects their school attendance and mental wellbeing, where across the board, all school attendance worsened (Montgomery et al.). In this same study, it was tested what effects would happen when given proper products and education about menstrual cycles and hygiene, which resulted in a 9% increase of school attendance for those receiving pad products and education (Montgomery et al.). From this, we see that period poverty effects on a global scale is better mitigated when given access to products and education, showing a clear issue period poverty creates. Although the cost of menstruation products creates a poverty line that women cannot access, and we see even bigger issues outside of our own country with less accessibility to resources and education, we do see some improvement with this issue in Scotland. Recently, menstruation products were deemed as a necessity to women by Scotish Parliament, that will eliminate the financial barrier and make these products accessible to everyone. In this document, it is stated that tampon and pad products will be obtainable free of charge from local authorities, education providers, specified public service bodies, and public spaces (Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill ). This bill, created by Monica Lennon, aids in the effort of making these products accessible to anyone and everyone, which is important to inclusivity and dignity of women. As well as this, it takes the stress off women who cannot afford, find, or have these products readily available, which takes one less stressful factor out of the equation. By making this a law, Scotland helps everyday women become more comfortable with the subject of menstruation and menstruation products, as well as eliminating period poverty within their country. Further, the U.S could learn from this order and provide for a necessity that is uncontrollable, and normal within a duration of a life. If the United States were to take this same idea and alter it to help aid in environmental pollution from these products by making the more sustainable, reusable products free to women, it would be a step in the right direction of changing the societal views on menstruation as a whole while also providing a necessity to those who need it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, menstruation products are a seemingly simple, common item whose issues are complex. These products are known to contain chemicals, dioxins, parabens, bleaching, and cause diseases which are physically harming to women and affect their wellbeing. Additionally, these products are a major contributor in global pollution since they are one use disposable items, mainly containing plastics and components known to have issues with biodegradation. Beyond being pollutants, the issue known as ‘period poverty’ is apparent across the world, where the cost of these products makes them unavailable to the majority of women. This then forces those who do not have the means to obtain them, to rely on other unsanitary and unsafe methods of controlling their monthly cycle, which could lead to infectections and other diseases within the genital area. Along with this, societal views on menstruation contribute to the lack of awareness and responsibility of these products, considering this topic is a taboo, which harms solutions to the problems surrounded by them. Overall, if this topic was spoken about more so that there is no uncomfortability for a normal bodily function that women have to deal with their whole lives, it would create an culturally accepting atmosphere that focuses on improvements, sustainability, and accountability for how these products affect women throughout their lives. This one object shows the relationship it has between societies, the economy, and the environment on a global scale revealing issues that the state of the world must become comfortable in addressing to implement needed change.
Works Cited
“Albatross.” https://www.albatrossthefilm.com/watch-albatross.
Carroll, Linda. “Even in the U.S, poor women can't afford tampons, pads.” Reuters, 10 January 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-menstruation-usa/even-in-the-u-s-poor-women-often-cant-afford-tampons-pads-idUSKCN1P42TX. Accessed 11 December 2020.
Chong-Jing, Gao, and Kannan Kurunthachalam. Phthalates, bisphenols, parabens, and triclocarban in feminine hygiene products from the United States and their implications for human exposure. vol. 136, Environment International,2020.ScienceDirect, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019333859. Accessed 10 December 2020.
“The Facts on Tampons- and How to Use Them Safely.” U.S. Food & Drug Administration,30September2020, https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/facts-tampons-and-how-use-them-safely#:~:text=The%20toxic%20substance%20produced%20by,declined%20significantly%20over%20the%20years. Accessed 12 December 2020.
“Feminine Hygiene Products.” Cosmetics and Personal Care Products in the Medicine and Science Collections, Smithsonian Natural Museum of American History, https://www.si.edu/spotlight/health-hygiene-and-beauty/feminine-hygiene-products. Accessed 10 December 2020.
Leithe, Rune. “Why the toxic tampon issue isn't going away.” Environmental paper, 2018, https://environmentalpaper.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/RL_7mars_2018-1.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2020. “Menstruation (Menstruation Cycle, Period).” MedicineNet, 16 September2019, https://www.medicinenet.com/menstruation/article.htm. Accessed 11 December 2020.
Montgomery, Paul, et al. “Menstruation and the Cycle of Poverty: A Cluster Quasi-Randomised Control Trial of Sanitary Pad and Puberty Education Provision in Uganda.” Plos One, 21 December 2016, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0166122. Accessed 15 December 2020.
Peberdy, Elizabeth, et al. “A Study into Public Awareness of the Environmental Impact of Menstrual Products and Product Choice.” Sustainability 11.2, 17 January 2019, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/2/473/htm. Accessed 10 December 2020.
Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill. The Scottish Parliament, 2019, https://beta.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/current-bills/period-products-free-provision-scotland-bill/stage-3/bill-as-passed-period-products-free-provision-scotland-bill.pdf. Accessed 11 December 2020.
Robbins, Paul, et al. Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction. Wiley Blackwell, 2014, file:///home/chronos/u-73a7405edc001b929aedf20e17a2d70c3a832c86/MyFiles/School/Environment%20and%20Society%20A%20Critical%20Introduction%20by%20Paul%20Robbins,%20John%20Hintz,%20Sarah%20A.%20Moore%20(z-lib.org).pdf. Accessed 10 December 2020.
Scranton, Alexandra. “Potential Health Effects of Toxic Chemicals.” Women's Voices For The Earth, November 2013, http://www.womensvoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Chem-Fatale-Report.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2020.
Smith, Amy. “The State of Period Poverty in the U.S.” University of Pennsylvania Nursing, https://www.nursing.upenn.edu/live/news/1545-the-state-of-period-poverty-in-the-us. Accessed 11 December 2020.
Toxic shock syndrome. MedlinePlus. NIH U.S. National Library of Medicine, https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000653.htm. Accessed 11 December 2020.
Author: Luke Leuty
Introduction:
Imagine yourself in a fancy restaurant. Your waiter has just served you drinks and now looks expectantly at you while you browse their menu. Undecided, you are stuck between the filet mignon or the braised salmon. Finally, after what feels like an eternity to your waiter, you order the salmon. Your meal arrives, and you dig in! What you do not realize however, is that you have also dug salmon into a deeper hole. In fact, since the 1960s, wild salmon have faced extreme risk of extinction due to the farming and overharvesting of salmon. Now this may seem a bit of a stretch, but the reality is that there are now only two places where strong populations of wild salmon can be found, Alaska and eastern Russia. Farming salmon not only poses a risk for wild populations, but it is also a hazard to you too!
History of Salmon Farming:
Salmon caught the attention of breeders for three reasons: The first reason is their eggs. Unlike many other fish species, salmon eggs are easily visible due to their neon orange color and size. These eggs are easily collected in order to raise the fry. The second reason is their easy conversion to food. Normally, fish fry have several dieting stages before eating large food pieces like chopped fish. The salmon bypasses these stages, thanks to a large yolk sac the fry feed on for the first few weeks. This allows the fry to almost immediately begin consuming larger pieces of food, making farming a lot easier. The third and final reason is the salmon’s quick adaptation to captivity. Fish often fight borders, attempting to leap over nets and bashing themselves repeatedly against walls. Salmon are rather calm and thus make for an ideal farmed fish.
Salmon farming began in Norway by the Gronvedt brothers. They collected juvenile salmonids and raised them inside nets in the local coastal oceans. It did not take long for people to realize that money could be made by raising salmon, since wild populations had already begun decreasing. Salmon farmer Gjedrem began expanding upon the brothers' work. Eager to increase profits, he began selectively breeding salmon. Through a span of 1.5 decades, Gjedrem took a wild strain of salmon and increased the grow rate two-fold. His work was so significant that scientists have named it a new species, Salmo domesticus. Salmon farming did not stop in Norway. In fact, farming has spread all over the world! Farms all over the world now produce an astounding 3 billion pounds of salmon, per year! It is no surprise then that salmon are listed as the number one finfish in Western fish consumption.
Environmental Ethics:
Pathogens:
Even though salmon farming may look like it is beneficial, it hurts not only the life of the salmon inside the nets, but also the wild salmon. Much like factory farming in agriculture, salmon are often farmed in conditions where open wounds, disease, and poor water quality plague the salmon. In order to increase profits, farmers fit as many salmon as they can into net pens. This provides a breeding ground for various diseases and parasites, which might not exist or be as prevalent in wild populations. Even though wild and farmed salmon are divided by barriers, these diseases and parasites are not. Oftentimes wild salmon have courses that encounter salmon farms, and these pathogens are transmitted to the wild fish. While diseases in farmed salmon can be addressed, wild populations are left to suffer. Because there is a large number of fish concentrated in one area, waste from these fish is also concentrated. Poor water conditions not only affect the salmon but also native organisms living in that area. It turns a once healthy ecosystem into an ecological sewer.
Escapees:
As if the pathogenic consequences of salmon farming were not bad enough, there is also the risk of escaped fish from these enclosures. Three things can happen when a fish escapes. The first is the fish simply does not survive. The second is the fish outcompetes and replaces the native salmon. The third option is that the fish can integrate itself into the wild fish populations, weakening the genetic pool wild fish come from and eventually causing the extinction of the wild salmon. This third option applies to areas where there are native strains of the farmed species, such as Norway. Even though escaping fish can be rare, when it happens the number of escaped fish is massive. According to Peter Bission, fish escapes often occur in the hundreds of thousands. Washington reported over 500,000 fish escaped over a three year period (1996-99). In Chile, millions of fish are reported to have escaped in only two years(1994-95)! So fish are escaping, but what does that mean for native salmon? Well, in one experimental study, the release of farmed salmon resulted in a steady decline in wild species due to interbreeding (Hinder, et al. 2006). Based on this study, where interbreeding resulted in the decline, it is a high possibility that outcompeting native species will result in a faster, more drastic decline in wild populations.
Risks and Hazards:
The salmon farming industry is one of the leading industries in aquaculture. With over 3 billion pounds of farmed salmon being produced, it dwarfs the harvest rate of wild salmon. Not only that, but selective breeding has led to salmon that grow up to twice as fast as their wild counterparts. It seems hard to see any negatives, especially when people are making money. Once we break down the risks and hazards of farmed salmon, however, we see two problems.
Ecosystem Upset:
The first risk is the chance of salmon escaping into the wild. While it may not be a direct risk to people, it is a great risk to native wild populations of fish. An invasive species can quickly upset an ecosystem. Not only can the fish itself impact the environment, but it can also bring new diseases. Farmed salmon are no different. In fact, according to one article, “The evidence that ISAV and PRV (diseases affecting both wild and farmed salmon) have spread between widely separated regions of the world elevates the risk to Pacific salmon.” (Morton & Routledge, 2016). The risk is too great to wild species of salmon and can devastate an entire ecosystem.
PCB Levels:
The second dilemma is the risk of Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), in farmed salmon. PCBS are man made chemicals that have been connected to causing cancer, damaging neurological systems, and harming the immune and reproductive systems. As with many chemicals, the higher up the food chain, the more concentrated a chemical becomes in each organism. Because the farmed salmon’s food is composed of smaller fish ground up into fish meal, they receive a significantly higher concentration of PCBs than their wild counterparts. PCBs typically accumulate in the fat of an organism. On average, farmed salmon have roughly 10% more fat than wild salmon, allowing for more buildup of PCBs in farmed salmon. Since salmon is one of the most frequently eaten finfish in the Western world, this hazard has an increased risk of entering your body! PCBs also take a long time to be removed. It can take up to a decade for only half of the PCB in your body to be removed. Wild salmon contain significantly less PCB concentrations as opposed to farmed salmon. This is due to the variety in their diets, as well as less fat percentages.
Conclusion:
Salmon farming is a relatively recent industry that brings a once scarce fish to the markets in countless numbers. Farmed salmon outnumbers wild salmon in the markets 3:1. However, farmed salmon is an area of concern. Creating factory farms in the oceans not only creates poor conditions for the farmed salmon but also affects wild salmon. New diseases are brought into an ecosystem with new fish, so farmed salmon can infect wild runs of salmon when introduced. Farmed salmon can also escape their pens and either outcompete or dilute the genetic pool of wild salmon. The salmon themselves can pose a risk to humans. PCBs become concentrated in farmed salmon, making eating them a hazard. Farming salmon is a concern that needs to be addressed both by the government and by the public.
Introduction:
Imagine yourself in a fancy restaurant. Your waiter has just served you drinks and now looks expectantly at you while you browse their menu. Undecided, you are stuck between the filet mignon or the braised salmon. Finally, after what feels like an eternity to your waiter, you order the salmon. Your meal arrives, and you dig in! What you do not realize however, is that you have also dug salmon into a deeper hole. In fact, since the 1960s, wild salmon have faced extreme risk of extinction due to the farming and overharvesting of salmon. Now this may seem a bit of a stretch, but the reality is that there are now only two places where strong populations of wild salmon can be found, Alaska and eastern Russia. Farming salmon not only poses a risk for wild populations, but it is also a hazard to you too!
History of Salmon Farming:
Salmon caught the attention of breeders for three reasons: The first reason is their eggs. Unlike many other fish species, salmon eggs are easily visible due to their neon orange color and size. These eggs are easily collected in order to raise the fry. The second reason is their easy conversion to food. Normally, fish fry have several dieting stages before eating large food pieces like chopped fish. The salmon bypasses these stages, thanks to a large yolk sac the fry feed on for the first few weeks. This allows the fry to almost immediately begin consuming larger pieces of food, making farming a lot easier. The third and final reason is the salmon’s quick adaptation to captivity. Fish often fight borders, attempting to leap over nets and bashing themselves repeatedly against walls. Salmon are rather calm and thus make for an ideal farmed fish.
Salmon farming began in Norway by the Gronvedt brothers. They collected juvenile salmonids and raised them inside nets in the local coastal oceans. It did not take long for people to realize that money could be made by raising salmon, since wild populations had already begun decreasing. Salmon farmer Gjedrem began expanding upon the brothers' work. Eager to increase profits, he began selectively breeding salmon. Through a span of 1.5 decades, Gjedrem took a wild strain of salmon and increased the grow rate two-fold. His work was so significant that scientists have named it a new species, Salmo domesticus. Salmon farming did not stop in Norway. In fact, farming has spread all over the world! Farms all over the world now produce an astounding 3 billion pounds of salmon, per year! It is no surprise then that salmon are listed as the number one finfish in Western fish consumption.
Environmental Ethics:
Pathogens:
Even though salmon farming may look like it is beneficial, it hurts not only the life of the salmon inside the nets, but also the wild salmon. Much like factory farming in agriculture, salmon are often farmed in conditions where open wounds, disease, and poor water quality plague the salmon. In order to increase profits, farmers fit as many salmon as they can into net pens. This provides a breeding ground for various diseases and parasites, which might not exist or be as prevalent in wild populations. Even though wild and farmed salmon are divided by barriers, these diseases and parasites are not. Oftentimes wild salmon have courses that encounter salmon farms, and these pathogens are transmitted to the wild fish. While diseases in farmed salmon can be addressed, wild populations are left to suffer. Because there is a large number of fish concentrated in one area, waste from these fish is also concentrated. Poor water conditions not only affect the salmon but also native organisms living in that area. It turns a once healthy ecosystem into an ecological sewer.
Escapees:
As if the pathogenic consequences of salmon farming were not bad enough, there is also the risk of escaped fish from these enclosures. Three things can happen when a fish escapes. The first is the fish simply does not survive. The second is the fish outcompetes and replaces the native salmon. The third option is that the fish can integrate itself into the wild fish populations, weakening the genetic pool wild fish come from and eventually causing the extinction of the wild salmon. This third option applies to areas where there are native strains of the farmed species, such as Norway. Even though escaping fish can be rare, when it happens the number of escaped fish is massive. According to Peter Bission, fish escapes often occur in the hundreds of thousands. Washington reported over 500,000 fish escaped over a three year period (1996-99). In Chile, millions of fish are reported to have escaped in only two years(1994-95)! So fish are escaping, but what does that mean for native salmon? Well, in one experimental study, the release of farmed salmon resulted in a steady decline in wild species due to interbreeding (Hinder, et al. 2006). Based on this study, where interbreeding resulted in the decline, it is a high possibility that outcompeting native species will result in a faster, more drastic decline in wild populations.
Risks and Hazards:
The salmon farming industry is one of the leading industries in aquaculture. With over 3 billion pounds of farmed salmon being produced, it dwarfs the harvest rate of wild salmon. Not only that, but selective breeding has led to salmon that grow up to twice as fast as their wild counterparts. It seems hard to see any negatives, especially when people are making money. Once we break down the risks and hazards of farmed salmon, however, we see two problems.
Ecosystem Upset:
The first risk is the chance of salmon escaping into the wild. While it may not be a direct risk to people, it is a great risk to native wild populations of fish. An invasive species can quickly upset an ecosystem. Not only can the fish itself impact the environment, but it can also bring new diseases. Farmed salmon are no different. In fact, according to one article, “The evidence that ISAV and PRV (diseases affecting both wild and farmed salmon) have spread between widely separated regions of the world elevates the risk to Pacific salmon.” (Morton & Routledge, 2016). The risk is too great to wild species of salmon and can devastate an entire ecosystem.
PCB Levels:
The second dilemma is the risk of Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), in farmed salmon. PCBS are man made chemicals that have been connected to causing cancer, damaging neurological systems, and harming the immune and reproductive systems. As with many chemicals, the higher up the food chain, the more concentrated a chemical becomes in each organism. Because the farmed salmon’s food is composed of smaller fish ground up into fish meal, they receive a significantly higher concentration of PCBs than their wild counterparts. PCBs typically accumulate in the fat of an organism. On average, farmed salmon have roughly 10% more fat than wild salmon, allowing for more buildup of PCBs in farmed salmon. Since salmon is one of the most frequently eaten finfish in the Western world, this hazard has an increased risk of entering your body! PCBs also take a long time to be removed. It can take up to a decade for only half of the PCB in your body to be removed. Wild salmon contain significantly less PCB concentrations as opposed to farmed salmon. This is due to the variety in their diets, as well as less fat percentages.
Conclusion:
Salmon farming is a relatively recent industry that brings a once scarce fish to the markets in countless numbers. Farmed salmon outnumbers wild salmon in the markets 3:1. However, farmed salmon is an area of concern. Creating factory farms in the oceans not only creates poor conditions for the farmed salmon but also affects wild salmon. New diseases are brought into an ecosystem with new fish, so farmed salmon can infect wild runs of salmon when introduced. Farmed salmon can also escape their pens and either outcompete or dilute the genetic pool of wild salmon. The salmon themselves can pose a risk to humans. PCBs become concentrated in farmed salmon, making eating them a hazard. Farming salmon is a concern that needs to be addressed both by the government and by the public.
References:
Bisson, Peter A. (2006). Assessment of the Risk of Invasion of National Forest Streams in
the Pacific Northwest by Farmed Atlantic Salmon. USDA.
Greenberg, P. 2011. Four Fish: The future of the last wild food. New York, New York: Penguin
Books.
Hindar, Kjetil, Fleming, Ian A, McGinnity, Philip, & Diserud, Ola. (2006). Genetic and
ecological effects of salmon farming on wild salmon: modelling from experimental results. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63(7), 1234–1247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2006.04.02
Morton, Alexandra, Routledge, Richard. (2016). Risk and precaution: Salmon farming Marine
Policy, 74: 205-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.022.
Robbins, Paul. (2014). Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, Environmental Ethics.
Blackwell publishing.
Robbins, Paul. (2014). Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, Risks and Hazards.
Blackwell publishing.
Bisson, Peter A. (2006). Assessment of the Risk of Invasion of National Forest Streams in
the Pacific Northwest by Farmed Atlantic Salmon. USDA.
Greenberg, P. 2011. Four Fish: The future of the last wild food. New York, New York: Penguin
Books.
Hindar, Kjetil, Fleming, Ian A, McGinnity, Philip, & Diserud, Ola. (2006). Genetic and
ecological effects of salmon farming on wild salmon: modelling from experimental results. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63(7), 1234–1247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2006.04.02
Morton, Alexandra, Routledge, Richard. (2016). Risk and precaution: Salmon farming Marine
Policy, 74: 205-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.022.
Robbins, Paul. (2014). Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, Environmental Ethics.
Blackwell publishing.
Robbins, Paul. (2014). Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, Risks and Hazards.
Blackwell publishing.
Airplanes
Flying Too Close to the Sun?
Introduction:
Ever since Icarus took that fatal flight, humans have been fascinated with defying the laws of gravity, and taking flight just like the birds. Aviation has evolved many times throughout the centuries, but only recently has humanity outdone itself. Engineering machines that allow us to fly may have been our magnum opus. Airplanes have connected the world like never before in history. The number of ways that they have impacted our daily lives is incalculable. Trips that used to take days, sometimes months, now take hours. Shipping cargo and mail is now easier, faster, and cheaper than ever. Military planes have given us the ability to combat enemies in new and terrifying ways. Research aircraft have enabled scientists to reach far off, previously inaccessible locations, creating giant leaps in our understanding of the natural world.
While this incredible advancement to humanity cannot be understated, there is always a price to pay. Research suggests that the burning of jet fuel, and other fossil fuels, from airplanes releases an incredible amount of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. This can be detrimental to the environmental health of our planet. In Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, by Paul Robbins et al., they write that “…carbon dioxide, along with a number of other gases that are part of the atmosphere, play a major role in regulating the temperature of the Earth” (Robbins et al. 2014). The more greenhouse gases that airplanes release, the warmer our planet becomes. The aviation industry has been shown to be a major contributor to this warming. According to the Environmental & Energy Research Institute, “if global commercial aviation were a country in the national CO2 emissions standings, the industry would rank number six in the world between Japan and Germany” (Overton 2019). Along with the great deal of carbon emission that comes from airplanes, there is also a gratuitous amount of energy expended in the manufacturing process as well. After sourcing and shipping the materials, adding in the time and labor, the carbon footprint of aviation turns into some very titanic tracks.
A Short History of Airplanes
While humans have been trying to fly for millennia, we haven’t been able to master it until only recently. On that fateful strip in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, the Wright Brothers made their brief, yet groundbreaking flight in their gas-powered aircraft. In 1909, Louis Blériot flew his famous Model XI over the English Channel, essentially making the world a much smaller place. This intrepid innovator was the first to put the engine in the front of the plane instead of the rear. Many of the first military planes were modeled after his design. These early airplane designs were very primitive and many were short lived. Over the years, many other intrepid innovators eventually helped perfect the design. During the 1920’s small commercial airlines began to pop up, like Imperial Airways and Pan Am. Since then, aviation has evolved almost unrecognizably. We now have planes that can carry as many as 850 passengers. Much greater demand for airplane travel meant bigger planes carrying more passengers. As of 2019 the FAA reports that, “Every day, FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO) provides service to more than 45,000 flights and 2.9 million airline passengers, across more than 29 million square miles of airspace.” (FAA 2019). In the beginning, there was not enough air traffic and the planes were much smaller that their effects on the atmosphere went largely unnoticed. However, with this exponential growth in airline travel also came a huge increase in carbon emissions. The International Council on Clean transportation reported that, “from domestic aviation alone have increased 17% since 1990, to account for 9% of greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. transportation sector. Flights departing from airports in the United States and its territories are responsible for almost one-quarter of global passenger transport-related carbon emissions” (Graver et al. 2019). It wasnt until this year that the EPA proposed setting regulations for gas emissions from newly constructed airplanes. The story of airplanes is a long and perilous one. Time will tell how the story ends.
Environmental Ethics
The fast-growing airline industry is slowly becoming a double-edged sword. With larger planes and lowering costs, it is finally becoming available to more and more people worldwide that were unable to afford it before. Unfortunately, this means an exponential growth in carbon emissions being put into the atmosphere. According to a CO2 calculator on the International Civil Aviation Organization website, a one-way flight from San Francisco to New York City releases 38,680 lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere (ICAO 2020). With the average number of flights per month nearing 175,000, this is a major contributor to greenhouse gases that are affecting climate change. Unlike the major sustainable advances in other industries like solar power, and electric cars, the airplane industry has made little to no advance in this regard. If we are to keep the global temperature from rising too high, re-imagining airline travel must be on the top of the priority list. One simple answer could be to just stop flying as much, only for essential purposes. However, this seems unlikely, and the collective effort would need would be substantial. Some hopeful companies have been trying to use hydrogen based fuel, which is much cleaner than traditional jet fuel. Just this year, CNN reported on a new hydrogen plane being developed. The article states that “The plane's powertrain -- the mechanism which drives the plane, including fuel tanks and engine -- was built by ZeroAvia, a US and UK-based company developing hydrogen-electric engines. Using liquid hydrogen to feed fuel cells, the technology eliminates carbon emissions during the flight” (Cairns 2020). The technology still needs to be scaled up to a commercially viable degree but sounds promising for future air travel. This incredible innovation, along with solar powered airplanes could be an answer to this environmental enigma. The investment and research into the possibilities must be significantly increased.
Institutions & “The Commons”
For the fortunate few, flying is a part of daily life. Most of us have at least been able to fly on a plane at least once. Though it is true that airplanes have become cheaper and more efficient, the price of a plane ticket is still out of reach for the majority of the population. When we look at it through the lens of “The Commons,” we see that even if these countries fly much less and don’t contribute nearly as much to overall Carbon emissions, they bear the collective burden of the emission everyone else puts out. In Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction, by Paul Robbins et al. relates that, “One compelling argument holds that the root of the problem is that carbon quite simply does not stay put, with every combustion event (driving a car, burning a log, firing a coal plant for electricity, etc.) the carbon that is released quickly finds its way into the atmosphere” (Robbins et al. 2014). The atmosphere and the oxygen within it are shared by everyone on the planet. In the same way, if we were to find a way to reduce airplane emissions, the whole world would benefit. One major problem that arises when discussing this issue is that airplane travel is not controlled by any one entity. This means emission standards vary wildly from nation to nation, making global change in airline travel extremely difficult. The recent Paris Agreement that helped countries set carbon emission guidelines was a step in the right direction, but there is still a lot of gray area, and no real penalties for countries that do not follow the recommendations. Another issue that countries face, according to Environment and Society is that “Many governments, including that of the United States, therefore express fear that if they make sacrifices in this direction while others do not, they will no longer be competitive” (Robbins et al. 2014). This attitude of profits over people in another reason why this issue can be so puzzling. However, this home belongs to everyone, and all people deserve the right to a healthy planet. If we really care about addressing this issue, we will have to act, not as individual nations, but as one planet of human beings.
Conclusion
The relationship between the environment and society has been one fraught with burning, looting and destruction. For millennia, most of humanity has lived by a certain story, that centers the universe around us. We were led to believe that the natural resources are infinite, and the world was made for us. Everything is under our dominion. The animals that roam the landscape are ours to control. We even believed it was our God-given right to do so. This tall tale, has led to the exploitation of the planet to almost indescribable proportions. If we can begin to tell ourselves another story, perhaps looking to the indigenous as guides, we may have a chance yet. One part of this story includes our relationship with airplanes and flight, including all their benefits and downfalls. It seems that the more we continue to fly the way we currently do, the more unrepairable harm we are doing. If we continue our current unsustainable airplane activities, the atmosphere will continue its trajectory of warming until it becomes too hot to survive. Modern airplanes have been one of the greatest innovations of our time, yet that comes with responsibility, and a hefty price tag. Are our airplanes, like Icarus, flying too close to the sun?
References
Cairns, Rebecca. “This Aviation Startup Is Soaring Ahead with Hydrogen-Powered Planes.” CNN, Cable News Network, 16 Oct. 2020, www.cnn.com/travel/article/zeroavia-zero-emission-hydrogen-planes-spc-intl/index.html.
“Carbon Emissions Calculator // .” ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator, International Civil Aviation Organization, www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Carbonoffset/Pages/default.aspx.
Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI). “Fact Sheet: The Growth in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Commercial Aviation.” EESI, 2019, www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-the-growth-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-commercial-aviation.
FAA. Air Traffic By The Numbers, 21 Sept. 2020, www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/.
Graver, Brandon. “CO2 Emissions from Commercial Aviation, 2018.” The International Council on Clean Transportation, 2018, theicct.org/publications/co2-emissions-commercial-aviation-2018.
Robbins, Paul, et al. Environment and Society : A Critical Introduction, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/humboldt/detail.action?docID=1582846.
Created from humboldt on 2020-12-14 16:58:36.
Object of Concern: Beer
By James Stivers
Introduction
Let’s all pretend we are just finishing our work in the garden and it is a hot summers day. You go inside and decide that dinner tonight is going to be burgers and French fries. After all you deserve a nice dinner after spending all day working in the hot sun and those fresh picked onions, tomatoes, and head of lettuce will make the perfect accoutrement for your burger. To wash down the extremely American meal is a cold beer. You would not be alone in your choice of refreshment, according to Samuel Stebbins and USA Today, the average American over the drinking age of course, drinks just a little over twenty-six gallons of beer every year (Stebbins). Something light and crisp with that perfect citrusy bite of the hops. Your day is complete, but because you have just finished a course if global awareness, your mind starts to consider the process it took to make this tasty beverage in your hand and whether or not your consumption choices are causing harm to the world around you.
I chose this topic while brewing my latest beer. It is a hazy IPA, (or New England IPA depending on where you are from) that I named the Hazy Jane, after our new baby Hazel Jane. I have been brewing for several years, and until now never put much thought into whether or not it was bad for the environment. Also, after reading the amount of beer that the average American drinks a year, I realized that my friends and I are above average Americans. Oh, wait that is not a good thing. Anyway, the only thing that I have really done in a conservation sense is, that I built a recirculation system in order to conserve water, and I switched to an all-electric system that doesn’t have the harmful emissions from burning propane as well as having the added benefit that the electric setup heats more efficiently. This project intends to show the effects of brewing on the world around us and what some are doing in an effort to mitigate any harm that is caused.
A Short History of Beer
Beer has been around for a very long time and it has not always been the way that we are used to drinking it today by a long shot. The first beer that we have found is dated back over five-thousand years and was located in Mesopotamia (Andrews). I am sure that it dates back much earlier than that because those vessels were marked in a way that would make them suitable for trade or sale. I am sure people were consuming it much before that in its porridge like rye bread concoction that it was. Evan Andrews, a writer from History.com tells us that people did not only like beer in ancient times, but they actually had a goddess of beer (Andrews). However, we did not start to get our hoppy goodness until somewhere around 822 AD where we found beer recipes in a French Monastery which had rules for how to run the abbey including adding wild hops in the beer making process (Dogfish Head).
Through the years beer has progressed from country to country and with each move has changed a little, which is why we have the great number of beer styles today. With that increase in global consumption, there would have to be an increase in farming and infrastructure in order to keep up with the demand. Barley is the main ingredient in beer making and it migrated to our home state of California from Mexico sometime in the early seventeen-seventies says one study by the University of California at Davis (UC Davis), (Lazicki). This is where we will start our exploration into what this migration of a simple grain and a love of beer has done.
Lens/Framework 1 – Population – Growth and Demand
When we think about when beer was invented, production to meet the demand of the population would not have been a big deal. To get a better understanding of how much this has changed, I went back to the beginning of our textbook where our author teaches us that, “at the time of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago contained only 300 million people, today it holds more than 7 billion, more than a 20-fold increase” (Robbins). Now being a math major, I had to do a few calculations. First off, I am going to, for the sake of a never-ending hole, use the data that we found for America and use that as a guideline for the world. I am doing so because most countries have a much lower drinking age, if they have one at all, and some countries have a much lower consumption rate for obvious reasons than the United States. If we assume that sixty percent of the world’s population is of drinking age and even if we say that sixty percent of them drink, with the average annual consumption of twenty-six gallons, that come to roughly, sixty-five billion gallons of beer.
I wanted to see if this number was at all reasonable, and I found that Kirin, a well-known beer producer, does a yearly report of approximate global beer production. In 2019 the estimated production was 1.91 billion hectoliters which is about 50.5 billion gallons (Kirin). The company continued by telling us that this is a 0.6% increase in production, which is a number that has remained unchanged for five years. Looking back at the exponential model that Robbins gave us, this is not too hard to imagine. If the population is increasing exponentially, then everything on the consumption side has to follow in suit. To put that number into perspective we are talking about an increase to over 55 billion gallons in ten years and over 60 billion gallons in twenty years. In order to see what this population growth will really do, we must look at what goes into making beer.
What’s in a Beer
Would a beer by any other name taste so sweet? Well sure as long as we continue to use malts, water, hops, and yeast, I am sure the end product will be fine. The real question is how much of each thing is needed and what is it doing to our landscape. The main thing that we will focus on here is the largest player in the game which is the base malts. They make up the body of the beer. They are what gives a beer it color, some of its taste, and once mashed, a process of heating grain in water and holding it at specific temperatures to convert starch to sugar, allows the yeast to work its magic and turn the sugar into alcohol.
Kim Jordan, a writer for Craft Beer and Brewing, a well know beer publication, states that traditional methods for growing grain has a huge impact on the soil in the area in which it is grown (Jordan). The soil needs to be tilled multiple times which can lead to erosion and disturbance to the ecosystem that is supporting animals in the area, as well as the extreme amount of pesticides which are sprayed on which can kill off entire species of insects and harm animals that eat the grain as its growing. Here in California we hit a peak in the 1950’s at around 2 million acres of barley being grown and this number has since decreased drastically to around 80,000 acres being harvested in California in 2013 (Lazicki). As much acreage as this is, it is important to remember that only about forty-five percent of the barley that is grown in the United States is of the 2-row variety and goes to malting. In fact, the majority of the barley that is grown in the United States and specifically California is of the 6-row variety and is grown for animal feed, but that is for another day.
The thing that is most interesting about this particular area is that this does not really follow the same population growth model that the consumption has. The only explanation that I have been able to find is that we import a large amount of our grain that we use for brewing. Globalization has allowed us to let other countries produce the grain we need at a much cheaper rate and we let the other countries ruin their soil and natural habitats for our habits.
Lens/Framework 2 – Environmental Ethics – A waste of water
Anyone who has ever brewed beer know that it takes a lot of water. We use water to soak the grain. Then we pour more water through the grain to rinse off any excess sugars. Then we boil off a large percentage of the water right before we use cold water run through a coil in order to rapidly cool the wort, which is the beer before the yeast converts it, so that we do not kill the yeast. Just when you think you are done using this massive amount of water, you remember the mess you just made and have to wash everything. I have done what I can in my own brewing but have not perfected it yet. I keep a few milk jugs full of water in my freezer so that I can recirculate the cooling water instead of letting it pour out. I also use the water that is now hot to wash all of my equipment with a special food grade cleaner that is safe for consumption. After cleaning, I use the waste water to water any plants around the house and the spent grain gets taken to my in-law’s chickens. The chickens love me as you can imagine. That is all small scale though. I needed to look at what the big breweries are doing and was interested to see if any of them are making an effort to lessen the impact that they have on the environment.
Michael Agnew, a writer for The Growler, showed me just how much water is used in commercial breweries is his article from 2016. Agnew says that on average a brewery will use approximately seven gallons of water to produce one gallon of beer and the less efficient breweries will use up to ten gallons of beer to produce a single gallon (Agnew). He goes on to list the same things that I did, and it seemed as though there was no end in sight. If we use our calculations from above, we could see that globally, and we are using the seven gallons out of sheer horror, we use about 353.5 billion gallons of water to produce our beer every year. With the limited resource that our water is, we must find a way to save some. Obviously, the money involved with the sale of beer is going to mean that we will never stop producing, but if we do not find some more efficient ways to use water, we are going to run out. And just food for thought, I only mentioned the water used in the brewery. This does not account for the water used to grow the barley and the hops. That number would be exponentially larger.
When I felt slightly ashamed at what we were doing to our world all for a beverage I remembered something positive. A year or so ago I had an opportunity to attend a homebrew event in Reno/Sparks area of Nevada. One of our own California breweries was assisting in the event and they are Seismic Brewing Company from Sonoma California. I talked with the brewers for an hour or so and they were on of the reasons I started trying to conserve while brewing. On their website they say, “Our Seismic Mission is to brew uniquely flavorful, outstanding craft beer, while re-writing the books on sustainable brewing” (Seismic Brewing Company). In their brewery that have many cutting-edge technologies which use waste heat for heating the next batch. They have condensers so that the steam that we normally boil away is collected for the next batch. And they use glycol cooling so that no water is wasted for the cooling process. Anything they can do from their packaging to energy use is done in the most environmentally friendly way possible. If we could just get a small percentage of breweries to follow this model, the result would be an amazing amount of water and energy being saved as well as an increase in their profits due to lower overhead costs from water and electricity which at that level must be staggering.
Conclusion
In the United States and around the world, the population is growing at an exponential rate and with that growth follows a growing demand for beer and other products. Due to Globalization, we here in the United States however, have not seen an exponential explosion of growth in the agricultural footprint for the ingredients it takes to make this item. We as a global community waste an incredible amount of our precious water to produce our beer but luckily there are some breweries out there like our own California grown brewery Seismic that are doing everything they can to produce a great product while also lessening the impact made on our planet.
We all want to leave our children a better home than what we grew up in. With that, we also love to pass down traditions and past times as well. If we want to achieve this goal, we need to start now with finding new sustainable ways to grow our barley and hops. We need to find better ways to package product. But most of all, we need desperately to find ways to conserve water than is currently being wasted. I am sure that the ancient Mesopotamians could not have possibly imagined what beer would become and how much would be produced, but I am sure they would not condone the great waste that is created in its wake.
Works Cited
Agnew, Michael. The thirsty business of beer: How breweries are confronting the industry’s water problem. Prod. The Growler. 02 March 2016. Article.
Andrews, Evan. Who Invented Beer? History.com. 07 September 2018. Article.
House, Dogfish Ale. The History of Hops. 16 June 2015. Article.
Jackson, Christopher. Seismic Brewing Company. n.d. 05 December 2020. <https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=seismi+brewing&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8>.
Jordan, Kim. "The Oxford Companion to Beer definition of environmental issues." Craft Beer and Brewing. July 2010. Article.
Kirin. Kirin Beer University Report Global Beer Production by Country in 2018. Prod. kirin.co.jp/entertainment/daigaku/. 03 October 2019. Article.
Patricia Lazicki, Daniel Geisseler and William R. Horwath. Barley Production in California. University of California Davis. June 2016.
Robbins, Paul. Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction. Wiley, 2014.
Stebbins, Samuel. How much beer does your state drink? In the thirstiest, about 40 gallons a year per person . Prod. USA Today. 19 September 2019. Article.
By James Stivers
Introduction
Let’s all pretend we are just finishing our work in the garden and it is a hot summers day. You go inside and decide that dinner tonight is going to be burgers and French fries. After all you deserve a nice dinner after spending all day working in the hot sun and those fresh picked onions, tomatoes, and head of lettuce will make the perfect accoutrement for your burger. To wash down the extremely American meal is a cold beer. You would not be alone in your choice of refreshment, according to Samuel Stebbins and USA Today, the average American over the drinking age of course, drinks just a little over twenty-six gallons of beer every year (Stebbins). Something light and crisp with that perfect citrusy bite of the hops. Your day is complete, but because you have just finished a course if global awareness, your mind starts to consider the process it took to make this tasty beverage in your hand and whether or not your consumption choices are causing harm to the world around you.
I chose this topic while brewing my latest beer. It is a hazy IPA, (or New England IPA depending on where you are from) that I named the Hazy Jane, after our new baby Hazel Jane. I have been brewing for several years, and until now never put much thought into whether or not it was bad for the environment. Also, after reading the amount of beer that the average American drinks a year, I realized that my friends and I are above average Americans. Oh, wait that is not a good thing. Anyway, the only thing that I have really done in a conservation sense is, that I built a recirculation system in order to conserve water, and I switched to an all-electric system that doesn’t have the harmful emissions from burning propane as well as having the added benefit that the electric setup heats more efficiently. This project intends to show the effects of brewing on the world around us and what some are doing in an effort to mitigate any harm that is caused.
A Short History of Beer
Beer has been around for a very long time and it has not always been the way that we are used to drinking it today by a long shot. The first beer that we have found is dated back over five-thousand years and was located in Mesopotamia (Andrews). I am sure that it dates back much earlier than that because those vessels were marked in a way that would make them suitable for trade or sale. I am sure people were consuming it much before that in its porridge like rye bread concoction that it was. Evan Andrews, a writer from History.com tells us that people did not only like beer in ancient times, but they actually had a goddess of beer (Andrews). However, we did not start to get our hoppy goodness until somewhere around 822 AD where we found beer recipes in a French Monastery which had rules for how to run the abbey including adding wild hops in the beer making process (Dogfish Head).
Through the years beer has progressed from country to country and with each move has changed a little, which is why we have the great number of beer styles today. With that increase in global consumption, there would have to be an increase in farming and infrastructure in order to keep up with the demand. Barley is the main ingredient in beer making and it migrated to our home state of California from Mexico sometime in the early seventeen-seventies says one study by the University of California at Davis (UC Davis), (Lazicki). This is where we will start our exploration into what this migration of a simple grain and a love of beer has done.
Lens/Framework 1 – Population – Growth and Demand
When we think about when beer was invented, production to meet the demand of the population would not have been a big deal. To get a better understanding of how much this has changed, I went back to the beginning of our textbook where our author teaches us that, “at the time of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago contained only 300 million people, today it holds more than 7 billion, more than a 20-fold increase” (Robbins). Now being a math major, I had to do a few calculations. First off, I am going to, for the sake of a never-ending hole, use the data that we found for America and use that as a guideline for the world. I am doing so because most countries have a much lower drinking age, if they have one at all, and some countries have a much lower consumption rate for obvious reasons than the United States. If we assume that sixty percent of the world’s population is of drinking age and even if we say that sixty percent of them drink, with the average annual consumption of twenty-six gallons, that come to roughly, sixty-five billion gallons of beer.
I wanted to see if this number was at all reasonable, and I found that Kirin, a well-known beer producer, does a yearly report of approximate global beer production. In 2019 the estimated production was 1.91 billion hectoliters which is about 50.5 billion gallons (Kirin). The company continued by telling us that this is a 0.6% increase in production, which is a number that has remained unchanged for five years. Looking back at the exponential model that Robbins gave us, this is not too hard to imagine. If the population is increasing exponentially, then everything on the consumption side has to follow in suit. To put that number into perspective we are talking about an increase to over 55 billion gallons in ten years and over 60 billion gallons in twenty years. In order to see what this population growth will really do, we must look at what goes into making beer.
What’s in a Beer
Would a beer by any other name taste so sweet? Well sure as long as we continue to use malts, water, hops, and yeast, I am sure the end product will be fine. The real question is how much of each thing is needed and what is it doing to our landscape. The main thing that we will focus on here is the largest player in the game which is the base malts. They make up the body of the beer. They are what gives a beer it color, some of its taste, and once mashed, a process of heating grain in water and holding it at specific temperatures to convert starch to sugar, allows the yeast to work its magic and turn the sugar into alcohol.
Kim Jordan, a writer for Craft Beer and Brewing, a well know beer publication, states that traditional methods for growing grain has a huge impact on the soil in the area in which it is grown (Jordan). The soil needs to be tilled multiple times which can lead to erosion and disturbance to the ecosystem that is supporting animals in the area, as well as the extreme amount of pesticides which are sprayed on which can kill off entire species of insects and harm animals that eat the grain as its growing. Here in California we hit a peak in the 1950’s at around 2 million acres of barley being grown and this number has since decreased drastically to around 80,000 acres being harvested in California in 2013 (Lazicki). As much acreage as this is, it is important to remember that only about forty-five percent of the barley that is grown in the United States is of the 2-row variety and goes to malting. In fact, the majority of the barley that is grown in the United States and specifically California is of the 6-row variety and is grown for animal feed, but that is for another day.
The thing that is most interesting about this particular area is that this does not really follow the same population growth model that the consumption has. The only explanation that I have been able to find is that we import a large amount of our grain that we use for brewing. Globalization has allowed us to let other countries produce the grain we need at a much cheaper rate and we let the other countries ruin their soil and natural habitats for our habits.
Lens/Framework 2 – Environmental Ethics – A waste of water
Anyone who has ever brewed beer know that it takes a lot of water. We use water to soak the grain. Then we pour more water through the grain to rinse off any excess sugars. Then we boil off a large percentage of the water right before we use cold water run through a coil in order to rapidly cool the wort, which is the beer before the yeast converts it, so that we do not kill the yeast. Just when you think you are done using this massive amount of water, you remember the mess you just made and have to wash everything. I have done what I can in my own brewing but have not perfected it yet. I keep a few milk jugs full of water in my freezer so that I can recirculate the cooling water instead of letting it pour out. I also use the water that is now hot to wash all of my equipment with a special food grade cleaner that is safe for consumption. After cleaning, I use the waste water to water any plants around the house and the spent grain gets taken to my in-law’s chickens. The chickens love me as you can imagine. That is all small scale though. I needed to look at what the big breweries are doing and was interested to see if any of them are making an effort to lessen the impact that they have on the environment.
Michael Agnew, a writer for The Growler, showed me just how much water is used in commercial breweries is his article from 2016. Agnew says that on average a brewery will use approximately seven gallons of water to produce one gallon of beer and the less efficient breweries will use up to ten gallons of beer to produce a single gallon (Agnew). He goes on to list the same things that I did, and it seemed as though there was no end in sight. If we use our calculations from above, we could see that globally, and we are using the seven gallons out of sheer horror, we use about 353.5 billion gallons of water to produce our beer every year. With the limited resource that our water is, we must find a way to save some. Obviously, the money involved with the sale of beer is going to mean that we will never stop producing, but if we do not find some more efficient ways to use water, we are going to run out. And just food for thought, I only mentioned the water used in the brewery. This does not account for the water used to grow the barley and the hops. That number would be exponentially larger.
When I felt slightly ashamed at what we were doing to our world all for a beverage I remembered something positive. A year or so ago I had an opportunity to attend a homebrew event in Reno/Sparks area of Nevada. One of our own California breweries was assisting in the event and they are Seismic Brewing Company from Sonoma California. I talked with the brewers for an hour or so and they were on of the reasons I started trying to conserve while brewing. On their website they say, “Our Seismic Mission is to brew uniquely flavorful, outstanding craft beer, while re-writing the books on sustainable brewing” (Seismic Brewing Company). In their brewery that have many cutting-edge technologies which use waste heat for heating the next batch. They have condensers so that the steam that we normally boil away is collected for the next batch. And they use glycol cooling so that no water is wasted for the cooling process. Anything they can do from their packaging to energy use is done in the most environmentally friendly way possible. If we could just get a small percentage of breweries to follow this model, the result would be an amazing amount of water and energy being saved as well as an increase in their profits due to lower overhead costs from water and electricity which at that level must be staggering.
Conclusion
In the United States and around the world, the population is growing at an exponential rate and with that growth follows a growing demand for beer and other products. Due to Globalization, we here in the United States however, have not seen an exponential explosion of growth in the agricultural footprint for the ingredients it takes to make this item. We as a global community waste an incredible amount of our precious water to produce our beer but luckily there are some breweries out there like our own California grown brewery Seismic that are doing everything they can to produce a great product while also lessening the impact made on our planet.
We all want to leave our children a better home than what we grew up in. With that, we also love to pass down traditions and past times as well. If we want to achieve this goal, we need to start now with finding new sustainable ways to grow our barley and hops. We need to find better ways to package product. But most of all, we need desperately to find ways to conserve water than is currently being wasted. I am sure that the ancient Mesopotamians could not have possibly imagined what beer would become and how much would be produced, but I am sure they would not condone the great waste that is created in its wake.
Works Cited
Agnew, Michael. The thirsty business of beer: How breweries are confronting the industry’s water problem. Prod. The Growler. 02 March 2016. Article.
Andrews, Evan. Who Invented Beer? History.com. 07 September 2018. Article.
House, Dogfish Ale. The History of Hops. 16 June 2015. Article.
Jackson, Christopher. Seismic Brewing Company. n.d. 05 December 2020. <https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=seismi+brewing&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8>.
Jordan, Kim. "The Oxford Companion to Beer definition of environmental issues." Craft Beer and Brewing. July 2010. Article.
Kirin. Kirin Beer University Report Global Beer Production by Country in 2018. Prod. kirin.co.jp/entertainment/daigaku/. 03 October 2019. Article.
Patricia Lazicki, Daniel Geisseler and William R. Horwath. Barley Production in California. University of California Davis. June 2016.
Robbins, Paul. Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction. Wiley, 2014.
Stebbins, Samuel. How much beer does your state drink? In the thirstiest, about 40 gallons a year per person . Prod. USA Today. 19 September 2019. Article.
Object of Concern: “Bad Blood” The Stigma Behind Feminine Products
Introduction:
We are faced with the next biggest environmental challenge but are treating it as if it is the elephant in the room due to the stigma and taboo that engulfs it. The elephant is the impact that feminine hygiene products have on the environment and the health of women around the world. Menstruation has been viewed as “bad blood” since the beginning of modern civilization. Why is it that we view this natural process so poorly when “over 50% of the world’s population menstruates, and yet conversations about feminine hygiene and the ecological impact of product choices women make in the space, wasn’t spoken about. In fact, the taboo surrounding menstrual periods stunted the development of new products in the space with little to no innovations for over 80 years”(Shreya). Due to the lack of knowledge on feminine hygiene products and their impact on the environment, it has raised concern for the health of our planet moving forward.
History:
Menstruation has been a symbol of taboo and “bad blood” for many centuries. From ancient Greece to the modern era, women have been silenced and shamed for a process that is completely natural. The history of feminine hygiene products has always been a matter of secrecy until recent years. Let's go back in time and start in the 1800s. From about 1800-1900s women relied on homemade menstrual cloths but over time this process raised concern of bacterial infection. This concern sparked the creation of the first menstrual cup, which was made from aluminum or hard rubber, and rubber pants, which were just underwear lined with rubber. Many of these creations were reusable and had no negative environmental impact at the time. During World War 1, nurses discovered that,” cellulose was much more effective at absorbing blood compared to cloth bandages which inspired the first cellulose Kotex sanitary napkin, made from surplus high-absorption war bandages”(Kotler). This new concept of disposable feminine hygiene products was quickly becoming the new norm. By 1921 Kotex sanitary napkins were being mass-marketed and produced.
This allowed women to have more control over their autonomy and allowed them to work during their menstruation period. In 1933, the modern disposable tampon was patented under the familiar name of Tampax. Tampons were made from cotton and cardboard. From the 50s to the 90s tampons grew in popularity and began to be made of different plastics for a “leak- proof” design. Now we jump forward to 2020. Today we have a wide range of options in ways to manage our flow.
With rising environmental concern, many women are switching to reusable or sustainable organic methods. These sustainable methods include silicone menstrual cups and reusable pads. Although the history of feminine hygiene products has changed drastically over the years, the stigma behind menstruation is still present today and highly influences women's product choices. Resulting in such high levels of feminine hygiene product waste.
Environmental Ethics:
Tampons and pads are not just stopping a women’s natural flow, it is also stopping the flow of waterways and harming wildlife in the process. This happens when these feminine products are not disposed of properly. When looking at the world of disposable feminine hygiene products there are many environmental concerns around it. In some countries, such as Canada, disposable feminine hygiene products are classified as single use plastics and their nation is working towards more sustainable solutions in the year of 2021. Versus the United States where “it’s labeled as medical waste and does not need to be tracked”(Borunda). In the United States alone nearly 20 billion sanitary napkins, applicators and tampons are dumped into landfills each and every year. This means that roughly 55 million feminine products are dumper each day. These products can take centuries to break down. Single use plastic is one of many concerns revolving around feminine products. The production of tampons and pads are also very taxing on the world of Agriculture. According to the World Wildlife Organization, “cotton production requires the use of harmful agrochemicals (especially pesticides), high levels of water consumption and the conversion of habitat to agricultural use”(Collie). When looking at the cradle to grave life cycle of feminine hygiene products we can see the negative impacts throughout the process, starting here with agriculture and ending up in a landfill. Feminine products are a colossal waste burden with very little awareness. When looking at the life cycle “conducted by the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm'', they have found that, “the largest impact on global warming was caused by the processing of LDPE (low-density polyethylene, a thermoplastic made from the monomer ethylene) used in tampon applicators as well as in the plastic back-strip of a sanitary napkin requiring high amounts of fossil fuel generated energy”(Shreya). When looking at the math behind this, a year's worth of hygiene products would leave a carbon footprint of 5.3 kg CO2 equivalents. Our society has treated menstruation as taboo, which has forced many women to resort to single use products since they are easy to hide and dispose of.
Risks and Hazards:
Many women feel as if they are misunderstood when experiencing the natural process of menstruation. Solutions to menstruation have not been studied enough to have a beneficial and healthy alternative for women. This is an example of Risk perception. “Risk Perception is a “phenomenon, and related field of study, describing the tendency of people to evaluate the hazardousness of a situation or decision in not-always-rational terms, depending on individual biases, culture, or human tendencies” (Robbins). In the world that is biased towards women reproduction and views menstruation as “bad blood” or taboo, we have stunted the research needed to provide women with healthy hygiene products. Due to this slow crawl in research, female products have gone unregulated. According to Women’s Voice for the Earth, “Unregulated toxic chemicals in feminine care products may result in serious health problems, like increased risk of breast cancer, reproductive problems, asthma, and allergic reactions,” They continue to address the chemicals that can be found in this unregulated feminine hygiene products, “Chemicals of concern commonly used include carcinogens, reproductive toxins, endocrine disruptors, and allergens”(Women’s Voice for the Earth). Risk perception and the lack of regulation in female products go hand in hand. With the lack of science and education behind women's health we have blocked ourselves from proceeding further in the field of women's health. This is where the largest issue lies. Making menstruation and womens health a topic of discussion and concern will open the door for better alternatives for feminine hygiene products that can be both beneficial to the women’s reproductive system and save the planet. As Borunda once said, “All that menstrual fluid has to go somewhere” and in a single-use cotton pad or tampon at the landfill shouldn't have to be the only option.
Conclusion:
In our society today, in order to combat climate change, we need to address the topics that are taboo or that are out of our comfort zones. We can longer ignore the issues at hand that revolve around women's health when it is roughly 50% of the population. We need to start working towards changing the status quo and finding solutions that benefit mother earth while also addressing the concerns of women’s health. We cannot expect change if we cannot look the problem in the face. “Change will come, when the conversations change”(Bobel). When we can finally sit comfortably and discuss solutions for the world's leading single use plastics and pollution contributors, that is when we can make beneficial changes. So to those that read this, it's okay to find discomfort in this topic but know that half the people in your lives are affected by these issues and that your voice and choices will not only spark discussion but will change the pathways of climate change and move us towards a green future.
Sources:
Robbins, Paul, et al. Environment and Society : A Critical Introduction, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/humboldt/detail.action?docID=1582846.
Jennifer Kotler, PhD. “How Modern Tampons and Pads Were Developed.” What Did Women Use before Tampons and Pads?, Clue, 10 Nov. 2020, helloclue.com/articles/culture/a-short-history-of-modern-menstrual-products.
Whitaker, Image by Hannah. “How Tampons and Pads Became so Unsustainable.” Environment, 18 Oct. 2019, www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/09/how-tampons-pads-became-unsustainable-story-of-plastic/.
Shreya. “The Ecological Impact of Feminine Hygiene Products.” Technology and Operations Management, 4 Nov. 2016, digital.hbs.edu/platform-rctom/submission/the-ecological-impact-of-feminine-hygiene-products/.
“Chem Fatale - Toxic Chemicals in Feminine Care Products.” Women's Voices for the Earth, 10 Jan. 2020, www.womensvoices.org/menstrual-care-products/chem-fatale-report/chem-fatale-fact-sheet/.
Collie, Meghan. “Pads and Tampons Can Harm the Environment. What's the Alternative?” Global News, Global News, 23 Feb. 2020, globalnews.ca/news/6535090/pads-tampons-climate-change/.
Aviva Saadatfar
Laura Johnson
Global Awareness
December 16, 2020
Social Media
Introduction:
Technology has brought the human species a multitude of useful tools. Through technology, people have been able to achieve things that seemed impossible, like renewable energy or going to the moon; but there is one piece of technology that has arguably done more harm than good. Social media “refers to the means of interactions among people in which they create, share, and/or exchange information and ideas in virtual communities and networks” (Social Media Overview). Social media has been fueled by the evolutionary need for humans to be a part of a social group. People are able to create, share, like, and comment on content. It has allowed us to expand our social group to 500 Facebook friends or 10,000 Instagram followers. It also acts as a primary news source for many users, as well as a place to shop for a plethora of items. We often think of social media as a place to post a photo on Instagram or share a post on Facebook, but we never really think about how social media affects our political economy and is an agent for companies to practice unethical environmental procedures.
Short History:
Social media has historically been used as a tool to connect people. In the mid 1900s, technology began to excel rapidly, and in the 1960s, the earliest form of the internet was created. By the 1980s, the average person was able to have a computer in their own homes, allowing them to have internet access. By 1997, the first social media platform, Six Degrees, was established and allowed people to make profiles and become friends with other users (Squires). By 1998, the search engine “Google” was created and it would change the internet forever. In 1999, the first blogging sites were created and many of them are still popular today (Hendricks). Between the years 2000 and today, a plethora of social media platforms were created and proliferated around the world. Some of the social media platforms that became popular and a significant part of peoples’ lives were Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Youtube, Tumblr, Pinterest, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and Vine.
The inner workings of the algorithms that make these platforms successful are incredibly complex and often require an entire team of technologists to create them. The accuracy of these algorithms are the reason why social media platforms have become so prolific. Many people would agree that social media is a place where we focus much of our attention. Whenever we use one of these platforms, our limited capacity for attention is used, and the technologists who create these platforms know this. The basic goal of all of these platforms is to take as much of our attention as possible. Some examples of how these platforms maximize our attention are the autoplay features on Youtube, the stories we can watch on Instagram, and the “discover” feature on Snapchat. The longer they have our attention, the more money they make and the more persuadable we become. These platforms are able to do this by showing us content that we want to see. Everything we do, see, like, dislike, tweet, retweet, share, comment on, and scroll past on these platforms are recorded and used to create a model of who we are. Once this model is created, algorithms can predict what we will do, how we will think, what we buy, and what we will feel (The Social Dilemma).
Political Economy:
Many people believe that today’s political climate is among some of the most divisive in American history, and this is not without good reason. Social media platforms have been the epicenter for the propagation of fake news and conspiracy theories. Extreme conspiratorial claims from a fake pandemic and election fraud to flat earth and autism caused by vaccines have all been intensified through social media. While this may seem trivial, it comes at the cost of healthy politics and the planet. Social media platforms are incentivized to promote and propagate the most engaging content, especially when this content is polarizing and misleading (Ledger of Harms), because it generates the most activity. In the United States, the fact of climate change has become a political issue; people who subscribe to the truth of climate change are Democrats, and people who don't are Republicans. Social media works in such a way that the content a user is being shown is content he/she wants to see, even if that content is false. If a person has been seeking out information that describes climate change as a hoax, then the social media algorithm will suggest content to that user in the same vein. What social media will not do for this user is suggest content that will challenge the views of him or her; it will not show content that may disturb existing perspectives. The confirmation bias that social media presents to its users only cements existing political views and opinions, and in the U.S., these divisive views on climate change are polar opposites. The biases of content shown to users is especially dangerous to those who lack critical thinking skills. The false information shown is often the most profitable, so there is no incentive for these platforms to self-regulate it. According to the research paper “Climate Change Sentiment on Twitter: An Unsolicited Public Opinion Poll,” social media platforms are increasingly becoming a news source for many Americans. Scientists, scholars, educators, and a portion of the United States are aware that climate change is among the most urgent existential threats to the human race. But the rest of the country does not view climate change in this way. In the context of climate change (and other politically charged views), it has become abundantly clear that the country is operating from two different sets of facts, two sets of reality. There are the climate activists, and the climate deniers. There are people being shown the scientifically proven data of climate change, and others are being manipulated into believing that it is fake. How can this country expect to face the very real and urgent threat of climate change when we are operating on completely different bodies of knowledge? How can we begin the process of healing the Earth when we cannot decipher fact from fiction? How can we demand that lawmakers invest in clean energy and sustainable living when the lawmakers themselves have fallen victim to the falsities of social media? Governments need to come together to place restrictions on how much false information social media platforms can propagate. The two leading political parties in the U.S. must unify to address these issues. While people may argue that this false information is protected speech under the first amendment, should it also mean that it be spread at scale? There needs to be a limit to how much conspiratorial and false data the public can receive, especially when it comes at the cost of humanity and the environment. As Sacha Baron Cohen famously put it “freedom of speech is not freedom of reach.”
Environmental Ethics:
Social media not only makes it more difficult for us to address politically charged issues, it also promotes the culture of consumerism and materialism. It allows many companies to advertise at scales that have never been possible. Because content on social media platforms are targeted, especially ads, we are most likely to buy products that are shown to us through these platforms, especially since shopping has largely moved online during the pandemic. While many of these platforms show ads for everything from diet and skin products, to food subscriptions and home-cookware, I will be focusing on the advertisements of fast fashion. Social media has allowed the ads of fast fashion companies to reach an unprecedented number of people. Companies like Zaful, Fashion Nova, Shein, and Romwe have become the Forever 21s and H&Ms of the social media world. These companies sell cheap clothing, shoes, and accessories that are constantly being updated to match current fashion trends. Many of the materials they use to make products, such as cotton, polyester and various dyes are sourced in unsustainable ways. The manufacturing and production of cotton and polyester is often associated with significant health impacts (Bick et al.). The production of these clothing products pose threats to the local animals and people living nearby the production facilities. Wastewater containing untreated dyes will often be discharged into the local water systems, which can release toxicants and heavy metals (Bick et al.), possibly causing diseases such as “Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, and Alzheimer’s disease” (Engwa et al.). In addition, cotton requires large amounts of pesticides to grow, while polyester is a derivative of oil (Bick et al.), which we know is harmful to the environment. According to the article, “The Environmental Price of Fast Fashion,” the fast fashion industry produces 8-10% of global carbon dioxide emissions each year, it consumes about 79 trillion liters of water each year, it is responsible for about 20% of industrial water pollution, and contributes about 35% of microplastic pollution in the oceans every year. According to Table 2.1 in “Environment and Society, Americans release the most carbon dioxide per capita, at 23.92 tons annually. In addition, the North American continent withdraws the most freshwater than any other continent, at 1,663 cubic meters per year per capita (Robbins et al.). Consumers need to start making decisions to stop buying clothing from these social media platforms, and instead buy from sustainable sources. Many of these platforms, such as Instagram and Facebook have made it incredibly easy to buy products directly from their sites, which contribute even more to the harmful effects of the fast fashion industry. As I have emphasized in the previous paragraph, governments need to begin to regulate these platforms more heavily, as there are currently minimal laws that regulate these sites. Government agencies must begin to place limits on how much companies can advertise on social media sites. There also needs to be limitations on how many of these advertisements a person can see in a day from the same company. Lastly, there should be restrictions on what kind of user data social media can sell to advertisers, so ads are not so precisely targeted.
Conclusion:
In both of the lenses that have been discussed, political economy and environmental ethics, social media has played a key role in polarizing the country, as well as promoting companies that harm the environment. Social media platforms need to be held accountable for the type of content they can display. Governments have to implement laws and regulations on how much false information can be spread on these platforms, and how much advertising a consumer can receive.
Social media has the potential to do so much good when used correctly and ethically. As we have seen throughout the years, social media has been a place for people to share ideas about how we can move the country in a better direction. People from all over the world have come together through social media to promote some amazing causes, such as the Black Lives Matter and Me Too movements, as well as (ironically) ways to combat climate change and promote body acceptance. It is important to recognize the bad and the good that social media poses, and be able to weed-out the bad. Restricting these social media platforms will not solve all of our issues. It will not end the political tensions in this country, nor will it end the harms of consumerism, but it sure would be a good place to start. As I firmly believe, there has got to be much more to the internet than social media.
Citations
“Social Media Overview.” Communications and Marketing , Tufts University Relations , 2020, communications.tufts.edu/marketing-and-branding/social-media-overview/.
Squires, David. “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Social Media: History and Different Types of Social Media.” Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Social Media: (But Were Too Afraid to Ask), University of Southern California , 24 Oct. 2016, scalar.usc.edu/works/everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-social-media-but-were-too-afraid-to-ask/history-and-different-types-of-social-media.
Hendricks, Drew. “The Complete History of Social Media: Then And Now.” Small Business Trends, Social Media , 25 Nov. 2019, smallbiztrends.com/2013/05/the-complete-history-of-social-media-infographic.html.
The Social Dilemma. Directed by Larissa Rhodes, performance by Tristan Harris. Exposure Labs, 2020. Netflix. Netflix.com.
“Ledger of Harms.” HumaneTech, Humane Center Center for Technology, 11 Oct. 2020, ledger.humanetech.com/.
Cody, Emily M., et al. “Climate Change Sentiment on Twitter: An Unsolicited Public Opinion Poll.” Plos One, vol. 10, no. 8, 2015, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136092.
Bick, Rachel, et al. “The Global Environmental Injustice of Fast Fashion.” Environmental Health, vol. 17, no. 1, 2018, doi:10.1186/s12940-018-0433-7.
Engwa, Godwill Azeh, et al. “Mechanism and Health Effects of Heavy Metal Toxicity in Humans.” Poisoning in the Modern World - New Tricks for an Old Dog?, 2019, doi:10.5772/intechopen.82511.
Niinimäki, Kirsi, et al. “The Environmental Price of Fast Fashion.” Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, vol. 1, no. 4, 2020, pp. 189–200., doi:10.1038/s43017-020-0039-9.
Robbins, Paul, et al. Environment and Society : A Critical Introduction, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/humboldt/detail.action?docID=1582846.
Laura Johnson
Global Awareness
December 16, 2020
Social Media
Introduction:
Technology has brought the human species a multitude of useful tools. Through technology, people have been able to achieve things that seemed impossible, like renewable energy or going to the moon; but there is one piece of technology that has arguably done more harm than good. Social media “refers to the means of interactions among people in which they create, share, and/or exchange information and ideas in virtual communities and networks” (Social Media Overview). Social media has been fueled by the evolutionary need for humans to be a part of a social group. People are able to create, share, like, and comment on content. It has allowed us to expand our social group to 500 Facebook friends or 10,000 Instagram followers. It also acts as a primary news source for many users, as well as a place to shop for a plethora of items. We often think of social media as a place to post a photo on Instagram or share a post on Facebook, but we never really think about how social media affects our political economy and is an agent for companies to practice unethical environmental procedures.
Short History:
Social media has historically been used as a tool to connect people. In the mid 1900s, technology began to excel rapidly, and in the 1960s, the earliest form of the internet was created. By the 1980s, the average person was able to have a computer in their own homes, allowing them to have internet access. By 1997, the first social media platform, Six Degrees, was established and allowed people to make profiles and become friends with other users (Squires). By 1998, the search engine “Google” was created and it would change the internet forever. In 1999, the first blogging sites were created and many of them are still popular today (Hendricks). Between the years 2000 and today, a plethora of social media platforms were created and proliferated around the world. Some of the social media platforms that became popular and a significant part of peoples’ lives were Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Youtube, Tumblr, Pinterest, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and Vine.
The inner workings of the algorithms that make these platforms successful are incredibly complex and often require an entire team of technologists to create them. The accuracy of these algorithms are the reason why social media platforms have become so prolific. Many people would agree that social media is a place where we focus much of our attention. Whenever we use one of these platforms, our limited capacity for attention is used, and the technologists who create these platforms know this. The basic goal of all of these platforms is to take as much of our attention as possible. Some examples of how these platforms maximize our attention are the autoplay features on Youtube, the stories we can watch on Instagram, and the “discover” feature on Snapchat. The longer they have our attention, the more money they make and the more persuadable we become. These platforms are able to do this by showing us content that we want to see. Everything we do, see, like, dislike, tweet, retweet, share, comment on, and scroll past on these platforms are recorded and used to create a model of who we are. Once this model is created, algorithms can predict what we will do, how we will think, what we buy, and what we will feel (The Social Dilemma).
Political Economy:
Many people believe that today’s political climate is among some of the most divisive in American history, and this is not without good reason. Social media platforms have been the epicenter for the propagation of fake news and conspiracy theories. Extreme conspiratorial claims from a fake pandemic and election fraud to flat earth and autism caused by vaccines have all been intensified through social media. While this may seem trivial, it comes at the cost of healthy politics and the planet. Social media platforms are incentivized to promote and propagate the most engaging content, especially when this content is polarizing and misleading (Ledger of Harms), because it generates the most activity. In the United States, the fact of climate change has become a political issue; people who subscribe to the truth of climate change are Democrats, and people who don't are Republicans. Social media works in such a way that the content a user is being shown is content he/she wants to see, even if that content is false. If a person has been seeking out information that describes climate change as a hoax, then the social media algorithm will suggest content to that user in the same vein. What social media will not do for this user is suggest content that will challenge the views of him or her; it will not show content that may disturb existing perspectives. The confirmation bias that social media presents to its users only cements existing political views and opinions, and in the U.S., these divisive views on climate change are polar opposites. The biases of content shown to users is especially dangerous to those who lack critical thinking skills. The false information shown is often the most profitable, so there is no incentive for these platforms to self-regulate it. According to the research paper “Climate Change Sentiment on Twitter: An Unsolicited Public Opinion Poll,” social media platforms are increasingly becoming a news source for many Americans. Scientists, scholars, educators, and a portion of the United States are aware that climate change is among the most urgent existential threats to the human race. But the rest of the country does not view climate change in this way. In the context of climate change (and other politically charged views), it has become abundantly clear that the country is operating from two different sets of facts, two sets of reality. There are the climate activists, and the climate deniers. There are people being shown the scientifically proven data of climate change, and others are being manipulated into believing that it is fake. How can this country expect to face the very real and urgent threat of climate change when we are operating on completely different bodies of knowledge? How can we begin the process of healing the Earth when we cannot decipher fact from fiction? How can we demand that lawmakers invest in clean energy and sustainable living when the lawmakers themselves have fallen victim to the falsities of social media? Governments need to come together to place restrictions on how much false information social media platforms can propagate. The two leading political parties in the U.S. must unify to address these issues. While people may argue that this false information is protected speech under the first amendment, should it also mean that it be spread at scale? There needs to be a limit to how much conspiratorial and false data the public can receive, especially when it comes at the cost of humanity and the environment. As Sacha Baron Cohen famously put it “freedom of speech is not freedom of reach.”
Environmental Ethics:
Social media not only makes it more difficult for us to address politically charged issues, it also promotes the culture of consumerism and materialism. It allows many companies to advertise at scales that have never been possible. Because content on social media platforms are targeted, especially ads, we are most likely to buy products that are shown to us through these platforms, especially since shopping has largely moved online during the pandemic. While many of these platforms show ads for everything from diet and skin products, to food subscriptions and home-cookware, I will be focusing on the advertisements of fast fashion. Social media has allowed the ads of fast fashion companies to reach an unprecedented number of people. Companies like Zaful, Fashion Nova, Shein, and Romwe have become the Forever 21s and H&Ms of the social media world. These companies sell cheap clothing, shoes, and accessories that are constantly being updated to match current fashion trends. Many of the materials they use to make products, such as cotton, polyester and various dyes are sourced in unsustainable ways. The manufacturing and production of cotton and polyester is often associated with significant health impacts (Bick et al.). The production of these clothing products pose threats to the local animals and people living nearby the production facilities. Wastewater containing untreated dyes will often be discharged into the local water systems, which can release toxicants and heavy metals (Bick et al.), possibly causing diseases such as “Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, and Alzheimer’s disease” (Engwa et al.). In addition, cotton requires large amounts of pesticides to grow, while polyester is a derivative of oil (Bick et al.), which we know is harmful to the environment. According to the article, “The Environmental Price of Fast Fashion,” the fast fashion industry produces 8-10% of global carbon dioxide emissions each year, it consumes about 79 trillion liters of water each year, it is responsible for about 20% of industrial water pollution, and contributes about 35% of microplastic pollution in the oceans every year. According to Table 2.1 in “Environment and Society, Americans release the most carbon dioxide per capita, at 23.92 tons annually. In addition, the North American continent withdraws the most freshwater than any other continent, at 1,663 cubic meters per year per capita (Robbins et al.). Consumers need to start making decisions to stop buying clothing from these social media platforms, and instead buy from sustainable sources. Many of these platforms, such as Instagram and Facebook have made it incredibly easy to buy products directly from their sites, which contribute even more to the harmful effects of the fast fashion industry. As I have emphasized in the previous paragraph, governments need to begin to regulate these platforms more heavily, as there are currently minimal laws that regulate these sites. Government agencies must begin to place limits on how much companies can advertise on social media sites. There also needs to be limitations on how many of these advertisements a person can see in a day from the same company. Lastly, there should be restrictions on what kind of user data social media can sell to advertisers, so ads are not so precisely targeted.
Conclusion:
In both of the lenses that have been discussed, political economy and environmental ethics, social media has played a key role in polarizing the country, as well as promoting companies that harm the environment. Social media platforms need to be held accountable for the type of content they can display. Governments have to implement laws and regulations on how much false information can be spread on these platforms, and how much advertising a consumer can receive.
Social media has the potential to do so much good when used correctly and ethically. As we have seen throughout the years, social media has been a place for people to share ideas about how we can move the country in a better direction. People from all over the world have come together through social media to promote some amazing causes, such as the Black Lives Matter and Me Too movements, as well as (ironically) ways to combat climate change and promote body acceptance. It is important to recognize the bad and the good that social media poses, and be able to weed-out the bad. Restricting these social media platforms will not solve all of our issues. It will not end the political tensions in this country, nor will it end the harms of consumerism, but it sure would be a good place to start. As I firmly believe, there has got to be much more to the internet than social media.
Citations
“Social Media Overview.” Communications and Marketing , Tufts University Relations , 2020, communications.tufts.edu/marketing-and-branding/social-media-overview/.
Squires, David. “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Social Media: History and Different Types of Social Media.” Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Social Media: (But Were Too Afraid to Ask), University of Southern California , 24 Oct. 2016, scalar.usc.edu/works/everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-social-media-but-were-too-afraid-to-ask/history-and-different-types-of-social-media.
Hendricks, Drew. “The Complete History of Social Media: Then And Now.” Small Business Trends, Social Media , 25 Nov. 2019, smallbiztrends.com/2013/05/the-complete-history-of-social-media-infographic.html.
The Social Dilemma. Directed by Larissa Rhodes, performance by Tristan Harris. Exposure Labs, 2020. Netflix. Netflix.com.
“Ledger of Harms.” HumaneTech, Humane Center Center for Technology, 11 Oct. 2020, ledger.humanetech.com/.
Cody, Emily M., et al. “Climate Change Sentiment on Twitter: An Unsolicited Public Opinion Poll.” Plos One, vol. 10, no. 8, 2015, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136092.
Bick, Rachel, et al. “The Global Environmental Injustice of Fast Fashion.” Environmental Health, vol. 17, no. 1, 2018, doi:10.1186/s12940-018-0433-7.
Engwa, Godwill Azeh, et al. “Mechanism and Health Effects of Heavy Metal Toxicity in Humans.” Poisoning in the Modern World - New Tricks for an Old Dog?, 2019, doi:10.5772/intechopen.82511.
Niinimäki, Kirsi, et al. “The Environmental Price of Fast Fashion.” Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, vol. 1, no. 4, 2020, pp. 189–200., doi:10.1038/s43017-020-0039-9.
Robbins, Paul, et al. Environment and Society : A Critical Introduction, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/humboldt/detail.action?docID=1582846.
Authors
HSU students enrolled in GEOG 300, Global Awareness, during the fall semesters of 2017, 2018, and 2019.
Archives
December 2020
December 2019
December 2018
December 2017
November 2017
RSS Feed
