A very real cost of our consumption

I haven't touched the BP oil spill story, since I didn't feel that I had anything to add to the coverage in the media and in many blogs.

Like many people, I feel angry and helpless because of it.

Stories like this one in the New York Times certainly doesn't help me.

Pelicans, Back From Brink of Extinction, Face Oil Threat

The images of oil-covered birds — pelicans, northern gannets, laughing gulls and others — are eerily reminiscent of the Exxon Valdez disaster 21 years ago, and have in recent days have become the most vivid symbol of the damage wrought by the hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil that have poured into the Gulf of Mexico since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded April 20. Since the spill, 612 damaged birds had been cataloged as of Friday, most dead but some alive and drenched in oil, federal officials said.

Yet the brown pelican, because of its history of robust recovery in the face of extreme peril, has a special significance for the public.

All of this is cause by our dependence on oil - without it, there would be no off-shore oil drilling, and thus no oil spill.

Right now, all focus must be on stopping the oil spill, which is still happening, but after that, it's time for reflection on how we can stop this from ever happening again in the future.

We will need to look into making offshore platforms and pipelines more secure, but we also most certainly will need to look into alternatives to oil.

A lot of oil is used for electricity - here other alternatives exist; from solar power to burning of trash, from wind energy over hydro energy to nuclear plants. Some of these options are not available everywhere, but by implementing those available, our oil dependency can be reduced.

Oil are also used for transportation - as fuel for motor vehicles and airplanes. Here alternatives are also starting to appear, and more research should be put into these.

Plastic is oil based as well. Here there is research into alternatives, but so far with little success. This is an area where further study most certainly should be done, especially when considering the ever-increasing use of plastic materials. Recycling of old plastic should also be stepped up, reducing the need to produce new.

All of these things can be done, but each of us can also do something - we can try to reduce our oil consumption, by switching off electrical devices which are not used (including adapters, which often consume electricity, even when not plugged into anything), by walking, biking, or using public transportation instead of driving cars (if possible), and by recycling and producing less waste.

We didn't drill for oil, BP did, but we are part of the reason why BP drilled. We need to face up to this, and take the consequences.

Food Waste in US and its environmental impact

PLoS One has an interesting article The Progressive Increase of Food Waste in America and Its Environmental Impact by Kevin D. Hall et al

Food waste contributes to excess consumption of freshwater and fossil fuels which, along with methane and CO2 emissions from decomposing food, impacts global climate change. Here, we calculate the energy content of nationwide food waste from the difference between the US food supply and the food consumed by the population. The latter was estimated using a validated mathematical model of metabolism relating body weight to the amount of food eaten. We found that US per capita food waste has progressively increased by ~50% since 1974 reaching more than 1400 kcal per person per day or 150 trillion kcal per year. Food waste now accounts for more than one quarter of the total freshwater consumption and ~300 million barrels of oil per year.

As this study shows, this is a serious issue which should be addressed. One quarter of all freshwater consumption wasted is simply way too much, especially considering the fact that we will encounter increased water shortage in the future.

The oil consumption sounds very high, but given the fact that the US uses approximately 19.5 billion barrels of petroleum per day, it's a very small percentage of the US consumption. Still, everything helps, and reducing this waste would be one step among many to reduce the US consumption of fossil fuel.

Also, as the abstract says, "methane and CO2 emissions from decomposing food, impacts global climate change". Since anthropogenic global warming probably is the most pressing issue of our times, any possible steps towards reducing AGW should be taken.

11 environmental ads that might just work

I came across this post over at the Daily Green: 11 Powerful Environmental Messages

These Images From Various Ad Campaigns Around The Globe Remind Us That The Planet Is In Peril

To my mind, our environmental challenges is one of our biggest issues right now. Long-term, it's a much bigger issue than our current economical downturn, so it's important to keep working on these things, even while going through a recession.

Smart bikes in Copenhagen

I just came across this interesting link about a research project going on in Copenhagen

MIT research bringing 'smart bikes' to Denmark

Copenhagen is without a doubt one of the most bike-friendly cities in the world, with bike paths everywhere, allowing people to ride their bikes almost safely. I'm saying "almost" since there are always risks when venturing into the traffic. On top of that, there is a lot of focus on renewable energy. The MIT people seems to be aware of this, as their director commented on this.

"One of the most striking aspects of Copenhagen is that it is already a very sustainable city," said Carlo Ratti, Director of MIT's SENSEable City Lab, which is overseeing the Smart Biking project. "A considerable fraction of its energy comes from renewable sources and, unlike a few decades ago, 30 to 40 percent of its citizens use bicycles as their primary method of transportation.

Still, there is room for improvement, and I'm looking forward to seeing the effect of this new project.

40% of deaths caused by pollution

According to this article a recent Cornell study shows that 40% of all deaths are directly or indirectly cause by pollution.

A recent Cornell research project concluded that pollution deserves a place alongside heart disease and cancer on the list of leading causes of death worldwide. Contamination of water, air and soil leads to 40 percent of the planet’s death toll, according to a study conducted by Prof. David Pimentel, ecology and evolutionary Biology.

We all know the direct causes such as arsenic in the drinking water, or mercury fumes etc., but the indirect causes might be less obvious.

The project focuses on how deteriorating environmental conditions and population growth are affecting the spread of diseases. According to the results, 62 million deaths each year are due to organic or chemical pollutants. Pimentel said that diseases like malaria, E. coli, salmonella, AIDS and tuberculosis are escalating due to the increased environment.

“Mosquitoes are much happier in polluted water. They spread a lot of serious diseases, like West Nile Virus and malaria,” Pimentel said.

So polluting water might not only lead directly to deaths (through poisoning and cancer) but also indirectly through increased frequency of malaria.

Of course, the study is pretty broad in its definition of what is caused by polution

The study classified malnutrition as an environmental impact issue because it results from a lack of adequate nutrients. Rainfall, temperatures and water quality all effect food production, and are issues of land and water, subject to pollution.

In some cases malnutrition is certainly an environmental impact issue, but in other cases, it's not. Street children can live in a somewhat healthy environment, yet still suffer from malnutrition.

Still, an interesting study.

Cornell's own coverage of the study can be found here, and includes a link to the study, which unfortunately is behind a paywall.

Making the environment greener?

It seems that China is painting a mountain side green. Seriously. Why? Well, the local villagers and the workers doing the painting doesn't know why, but there is some speculation.

Some villagers believed Fumin county officials were attempting to change the area's feng shui - the ancient Chinese belief of harmonising the physical environment for maximum health and financial benefit.

If that's true, that's some major woo going on.

The alternative explanaition is nearly as depressing.

Others suggested it was an unusual attempt to "green" the area in keeping with calls for more attention to the environment.

I'm sure that some environmentalists feel like crying if this is true, especially given the cost of the painting could easily cover planting of enough real trees and vegetation to cover the area.