A Trashless New Year

As we head into the new year tonight, many people are making the usual resolutions, "lose weight," "get fit," or "spend less, save more." My resolution this year is a bit different. I will be trying to go completely trashless for a month! Any trash that I do produce I will post on a new page of the blog along with some thoughts on how I could eliminate the trash in the future.

Going trashless not only reduces waste, it is also a great way to eat healthy (so I'm really getting two resolutions in one). A great resource I have found to help me on this journey is the Zero-Waste Chef. I have used a few of her recipes before; I have made the homemade granola and homemade yogurt, and both turned out delicious. I am excited to try more.

Most unhealthy foods come in packaging that is thrown away after use, so I will not be purchasing any of those this month, unless it is necessary for my health. My shopping will follow the three R's - reduce, reuse, recycle - which are listed in order of importance. First, I will reduce by not purchasing foods that come in an excessive amount of packaging. Then, if I do need to purchase any food in packaging, I will try to reuse those extra materials. For example, many people reuse plastic grocery bags as trash bags. I discovered an article describing how to make a drinking glass from a beer bottle (I may be making larger glasses with my wine bottles). Finally, I will recycle anything that is left. I think it is important that people realize that recycling is the last and least important part of reducing our waste. The efficiency of recycling is often overestimated. Recycling aluminum is almost 96% efficient, making it a no-brainer for recycling companies. Plastic, however, is more difficult to recycle, requiring a greater amount of energy, and generally being downcycled into lower-grade fibers. Regardless of the material, recycling requires energy to transport pieces to recycling facilities, and energy to melt or break down the pieces once they arrive.

I have mason jars to store seeds and snack-type foods. I have larger glass jars to use for purchasing meat from the meat counter. And last but not least, I have lots and lots of reusable bags.

Jars and bags ready for grocery shopping

I have a compost bin for vegetable, fruit and paper waste. Creating the bin was incredibly easy. I simply cut holes in the top and bottom of a large plastic container, ordered composting worms from Uncle Jim's Worm Farm, and started putting my waste in the bin. Composting is a great, no-hassle project after a little initial set up.

My compost bin

I look forward to sharing this journey with you all. Thanks for reading!

Lines of Evidence for Climate Change

A great place to begin understanding climate change and the human factors disrupting the natural cycle is a video from the National Academy of Science called "Lines of Evidence" which details the many sources of data proving that climate change is real and that human activity is a major cause. Click here to view the video.

The basics as I understand them are as follows: when the earth was formed most of the carbon molecules were trapped in basaltic rock. Burning fossil fuels releases that carbon in the form of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, along with some other manmade contaminants (like aerosols) trap the Sun's infrared rays in the form of heat. The Earth has had the perfect level of carbon dioxide for billions of years: a small amount of CO2 (about 0.04% of the atmosphere today) is needed to absorb heat from the Sun and protect us from the harsh temperatures of outer space. Too much carbon dioxide leads to overabsorption of the Sun's infrared rays.

Venus's atmosphere is a perfect example of overabsorption of heat from the Sun. It is believed to have occurred because of a runaway greenhouse effect. Currently, 96.5% of Venus's atmoshpere is made of carbon dioxide (remember ours is only 0.04%). It is believed that early in Venus's history, the planet looked similar to ours with little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oceans similar to ours with carbon trapped in basaltic rocks. However, Venus is closer to the Sun so its oceans were heated, gradually at first, evaporating the liquid and releasing the carbon molecules from their trapped solid form into a gaseous form (carbon dioxide). A feedback loop was created with the carbon dioxide released from the oceans heating Venus more and more until finally all of Venus's oceans were boiled away and all the carbon previously trapped in the ocean was released into the atmosphere. The surface of Venus is now hotter than Mercury, even though it is further from the Sun because of the heat Venus's carbon dioxide atmosphere absorbs.

If we continue to burn all the CO2 that is naturally trapped in the basaltic rock of the Earth, and we continue releasing other pollutants like aerosols into our atmosphere, it is not unlikely that we could develop our own runaway greenhouse effect, making the surface of Earth closer and closer to the hellish one of Venus.

Science vs. Politics

There is not a single source that does not have its own agenda. As much as one source may be left-leaning, another source is right-leaning. Science and logic do not lean one way or the other. I have studied science, not politics for the past 4.5 years, and there are countless scientific studies proving man-made climate change. 

There is no scientific doubt that carbon dioxide, along with other unnatural pollutants are warming the Earth's atmosphere and that human pollution is a significant factor. Large manufacturers are the worst offenders when it comes to CO2 emissions, so it will take some public policy to change their activity. Landfills are something that I have taken a particular interest in, since it is something that I can personally affect with ease and without the involvement of governmental agencies. 

I have a friend who is very involved in politics, and does not believe scientists who say that climate change is a very real threat to our planet, and that humans are a major cause.  That friend uses disposable plastic water bottles to refill his coffee-maker at work, I suppose because he finds carrying multiple, small, disposable bottles more convenient than refilling a single larger bottle and because he thinks the water in his office space is dirty. I find it ironic that he is concerned about the cleanliness of his office tap water because he does not believe that there is an environmental crisis, but he does believe that the tap water at his work is too contaminated to be consumed even after it is boiled in the coffee-maker. The plastic water bottles he uses instead are contributing to the warming of the Earth. Not only do the plastic bottles themselves pollute landfills, the production of the bottles is oil and water dependent and greenhouse gases are emitted by vehicles transporting the bottles to your local store. The climax of these effects will probably not happen in his lifetime, and it might not happen in mine. But, are we really willing to risk the destruction of our planet - the only place in the universe that we know of that can sustain life - for future generations because it saves a few extra seconds of our time?

Often when environmentalists call for sustainable practices, they are accused of wanting to send the world back in time before the industrial revolution. I do not think that we need to return to pre-industrial revolution practices. I love and am highly dependent on technology for most of my daily activities. I do believe however that there are many small, sustainable actions that can be easily implemented into our daily lives. A few extra seconds of my friend's time refilling a water bottle could delay the destruction of life on Earth. Is that possibility really not worth it? Even if plastic bottles did not contribute to global warming (which I assure you, they do), is it not worth a few extra seconds of time to reduce the risk of that destruction? Another easily implementable practice is reusable grocery bags. I find that reusable bags are easier to carry than the plastic bags anyway. The only slight inconvenience is the $1.50 price for a bag, and making sure to bring the bags with you to the store. Now that I've formed the habit, I hardly have to think about it.

I did a little bit of math on my savings, out of curiosity and to make myself feel a little important. I go to the grocery store approximately once a week, and when I used plastic bags, I received approximately 10 bags per trip. So, for the year I would get approximately 10*52 = 520 bags. According to Stanford, a plastic grocery bag weighs 5.5 grams on average. Therefore I am saving 5.5*520 = 2.86 kg of plastic a year (6.30 lbs). I went to the gym after I made that calculation and picked up a 5 lb weight. I enjoyed imagining it was made out of plastic trash, and that I made it disappear from the dump this year.

​

I know better than to argue politics with politicians. I do not know about the sources of funding for various agencies or how funding for specific studies is distributed. I do not know who is in control of which agency, and frankly do not care as long as the agency is committed to ethical practices. Scientists deserve a similar respect from those involved in politics. When 99% of scientists agree that climate change is a very real danger, politicians need to listen, not create emotional arguments based on their beliefs on taxes or religion. I will need more fact-based proof, not emotional arguments before I reconsider what I know to be true of science. 

A Critical Review of “Will Trump Stop the Rogue EPA?”

I will evaluate each of Jon Basil Utley’s arguments from his article in The American Conservative piece-by-piece, using scientific data and reputable sources.

The first argument I would like to address is the opening sentence of Utley’s article: “Virtually gone amuck during Obama’s last years, the EPA has issued masses of job-killing and job-preventing regulations and rulings that only a very strong and knowledgeable managerial hand can fix.”

In a study conducted by Resources for the Future, an independent nonpartisan organization, it was found that EPA regulations on average actually create jobs. The jobs may be shifted from a manufacturing position to a more bureaucratic one, but the job still exists. To quote the conclusions of the study:

“Our study of environmental regulation in the pulp and paper, plastics, petroleum and steel sectors suggests that a million dollars of additional environmental expenditure is associated with an insignificant change in employment, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from –2.8 to +5.9 jobs.”

Therefore, environmental regulations can cost a particular company a significant sum of money, but it does not affect unemployment levels overall. The inconvenient truth is that manufacturing jobs are becoming obsolete. This is not the fault of the EPA, but big business, who have decided that cheap, programmable robots should perform many of the tasks that used to require more expensive human labor.

Utley goes on to say “I have written before how there is almost no new mining investment in Western lands and Alaska because of EPA regulations and generated lawsuits.” Utley did not link the specific article that he claims to have written previously, so I am not sure of his exact claims, but there are many reasons the EPA has blocked mining investments in Alaska. One particularly relevant reason is that would kill jobs (you know, that thing this article is claiming to defend) and commerce for the fisheries that have existed in the mining areas of interest, Bristol Bay in particular, for thousands of years.

The EPA conducted a study on the effect of mining for gold in Alaska, and found that the consequences could impact the salmon fisheries in Bristol Bay significantly. The full quote from the EPA is as follows “The potential for large-scale mining activities in the watershed has raised concerns about the impact of mining on the sustainability of Bristol Bay’s world-class commercial, recreational and subsistence fisheries and the future of Alaska Native tribes in the watershed who have maintained a salmon-based culture and subsistence-based way of life for at least 4,000 years.” So, the EPA is again actually protecting jobs for plenty of hard-working people. Just not the ones that Utley would prefer to protect, right?

Next Utley proclaims that “The current leadership [of the EPA] should be fired or relocated to Alaska, maybe to study polar bears, which actually are thriving.” Jon Utley should really watch Planet Earth, a beautiful documentary from BBC that clearly illustrates the dire situation polar bears currently face. Additionally, the World Wildlife Foundation reports that polar bears are a vulnerable species, and that the population is expected to drop 30% by 2050.

The next quote is one of my favorites, “Think of all the new bureaucratic jobs and spending money these EPA self-administered funds will generate.” The EPA? Generating jobs you say? I thought the point of this whole article was that the EPA is killing jobs. Perhaps the specification of “bureaucratic” is supposed to scare readers. Again, I will say manufacturing jobs are becoming obsolete. It is not the fault of the EPA, but simply good business practice now to replace expensive human labor with cheaper robots. A bureaucratic job is better than no job at all, is it not?

The next argument from Utley is probably one of the more convincing, so I will spend a bit more time proving its falsehood. On the topic of scientists gathering data to predict future environmental crises, Utley claims that “actually, all the dire computer models of ten years ago proved to be wrong.” First, the referenced link is to the news site The Daily Caller, which is a highly opinionated source, similar to its liberal counterpart The Huffington Post. These sites have their place in entertainment, but reported “facts” on each of these sites should be carefully evaluated. The NASA Climate webpage is a much more fact-based source, and clearly states the data on its front page:
- Carbon Dioxide has increased by 404.93 parts per million.
- The global temperature has increased 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit.
- The Arctic ice minimum has decreased 13.3% per decade (poor polar bears).
- The land ice has decreased 281.0 gigatonnes per year.

Furthermore, in the Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that there is more than a 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet. So I suppose there is a 5 percent chance that Utley is right. I think that I would rather cut carbon emissions from huge manufacturing plants (and therefore cut the paycheck of a few billionaires) on the 95 percent chance that the emissions are the cause of climate change than risk a runaway greenhouse effect turning our planet into something like the hellish world of Venus on a 5 percent chance that the carbon emissions are not the cause. Also to note from the Fifth Assessment Report is the data showing that the temperature change in Alaska has been the most dramatic, rising 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 degrees Fahrenheit) from 1970-2004, so Alaska’s ecosystem absolutely does not need the additional strain of gold mining.

The next Utley quote does not need much of an explanation to refute. He says that “The actual expected sea-level increase of 1 to 2 millimeters per year (according to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report) would be 200 millimeters over the next hundred years, or eight inches, which equals less than one inch every 10 years. A newer article from the BBC reports the possible rise at 20 to 40 inches over the next 100 years—or two to four inches every ten years. Then the Washington Post warns that if Antarctica also melted, the seas could rise 50 feet by the year 2500.”

I have not read the Fourth Assessment Report, but in the Fifth, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report a rise by 200 mm in sea level from 1961-1990. If that trend continues linearly then the sea levels will rise approximately 23 inches. Note that the trend appears to be continuing exponentially, so 23 inches is a conservative number. The new article from BBC was probably referencing the newer assessment report.

Phew, almost done. Utley plunges onwards to say that “Even when the EPA does finally correct past errors in one area, it doesn’t follow through to change others. For example, after finally modifying its nuclear radiation threat levels by a factor of hundreds for civil defense (a tiny radiation dirty bomb would have entailed evacuating half a city under its old rules), it still maintains the same obsolete rules for nuclear energy plants and superfund cleanup sites, thus adding billions to their costs.”

I realize that this is not the point of his argument, but I would like to point out Utley’s phrasing of a “tiny radiation dirty bomb.” The man has exaggerated the EPA as a job-killing burden on industry, but decides to talk down the implications of a radiation dirty bomb. If you really want to stay in a city after a “tiny radiation dirty bomb” has exploded, Jon Utley, be my guest. At least now you won’t be required to leave, but I know my ass is getting out.

Finally, and most inaccurately, Utley attempts to define the mathematical concept of the linear no threshold theory. According to Utley, this theory postulates that “if 100 aspirin would kill a man, than [sic] out of 100 men each taking one aspirin, one would die.” This is simply untrue. The linear no threshold theory at its basest form would postulate that if 100 aspirin would kill a man, then no matter how much time separated the aspirins, the man would die after taking 100. If he took 1 a day, he would die in 100 days. If he took 1 an hour, he would die in 100 hours, etc. The theory is commonly used when discussing radiation effects on causing cancer. It is the reason that doctors will not give a patient more than a certain number of X-Rays in a large timeframe. The radiation exposure could create cancerous cells.