It's Gettin' Hot in Here

Here, meaning the planet Earth.  This week's blog is devoted to some research about climate change.  Climate change, as the name suggests, is a significant, lasting change in the Earth's current norm of distribution of weather patterns.  These periods of change can last anywhere from decades to millions of years.

This little baby is losing his habitat.
photo found at blogspot.com

According to the United Nations Climate Change Information Kit (UNCCIK), the Earth's climate is indeed changing right now, and the Earth is growing hotter.  The UNCCIK claims that the rate of the Earth's warming in the 20th Century (1900s) was the greatest it's been in the last 1,000 years.  They say that the average global temperature has increased by 0.6 degrees Celsius, +/- 0.2 degrees.  This rising temperatures have a very strong possibility of contributing to rising sea levels as well.  Furthermore, snow cover has declined 10% since the 1960s in the Northern Hemisphere.  Artic sea-ice now decreases by 10-15% in the summer and thinned by 40% in the summer to early autumn.  This habitat degradation affects all the animals that live there, including polar bears.

Now why do these statistics about climate change matter?  Isn't this a natural process the earth goes through?  Simple answer: yes.  The Earth does have periods where it heats up and cools down naturally, for example: the ice age.  However, humans are affecting this natural process now, messing with the Earth's natural heating and cooling cycles.

So, how do humans affect climate change?

Human activities release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and these gases control how natural energy flows through the climate system.  The increase in greenhouse gases interferes with the process of the sun providing energy to the Earth, and the Earth releasing energy back into space.  So, the Earth has to raise its global temperature to adjust to the "thicker blanket" of greenhouse gases to properly maintain the flow of energy to and from the Earth.

The use of these affects the Earth more than we think.
photo found at freefoto.com

This term "greenhouse gasses", what does it mean?

A greenhouse gas is a gas in the atmosphere that emits and absorbs energy through the thermal infrared range and help regulate the natural energy flow.  Greenhouse gases are things like carbon-dioxide (which is released when burning fossil fuels and when forests are burned down) and methane & nitrous oxide (which is released during agricultural activities).  Since humans rely so heavily on current agricultural methods to feed people and the burning of fossil fuels to provide energy, a ton of extra greenhouse gas is added daily to atmosphere.

So, why does this matter to humans?  How is this going to affect us?

For one, there are food security and agricultural risks to consider.  Certain areas will no longer be able to produce the same amount, type, or any crops if the climate changes too much.  This increases the already horrible economic strain on countries who can't feed their people, and it puts people in affluent societies at risk of going hungry as well.  Furthermore, with rising sea levels, we lose coastal areas of land where people live or visit for recreational purposes.  More humans will move inland, meaning less space for people overall, and the low-income nations whose national wealth rely heavily on income provided by tourists will suffer greatly.

The Earth warms and cools on its own.  As of now, we
don't know how much human activity affects this process,
says the global warming skeptics.
photo found at nasa.gov

Now, it behooves me to address the opposition as well.  There is much skepticism surrounding global warming, and most of it centers around the fact there is no overwhelming consensus on whether global warming is really a crisis.  Many argue that scientists don't understand the Earth's cooling and heating process nearly well enough to predict what will happen in the future.  Furthermore, we don't know exactly which percent of the Earth's warming is caused by human activities.  One of the biggest reasons implied in the hearland.org article that the skeptics hold so tightly to their arguments is the sheer cost of implementing change and preventative measures.  It would increase taxes and call for more government control over the disbursement of money.  So, people are worried about it costing both money and freedom.

Given what I learned, I believe that should humans continue using fossil fuels with no thought to the environment, the Earth will be a much, much hotter place in 50 years.   The farming and agricultural industries we rely so heavily upon will produce much less than what is needed to feed the world, and only the humans who can adapt to the harsher conditions will continue on.  Basically, humanity is greenhouse-gasing itself into an earlier cycle of natural selection.  Like Charles Darwin wrote, those best suited to living in the environment will survive.

Chemically at Risk

We know the chemicals in the cleaner
are dangerous.  But what about the ones
on the plastic itself?
Image found at mommybrainreports.com

Today, I read the article "Reducing Toxic Chemicals: Do We Know Enough About Chemical Risk?".  I was surprised by how much I didn't actually know.  As mentioned in the article, I assumed that the products I bought at stores and such were regulated by the government to be as safe as they could for human use.  Be it the chemicals in cleaners with proper warning labels to the plastics used in my reusable water bottles, I thought all of it was regulated by the same standards.  This is not true.  Different agencies of the government adopt different levels of acceptable risk for the same chemicals.  Many scientists and activists are arguing that the government should impose laws that will standardize the regulation and adopt the precautionary principle of making a significant effort in researching the safety of a chemical before allowing human contact.  This is different from the current system in which a product must be proven dangerous before it will be pulled off the shelves.

As with all things, there are pros and cons to changing current regulation standards.  A definite positive would be stricter guidelines and more assurance that we, the consumers of the products, are safe from being exposed to toxic chemicals.  A more standardized system would make sure we aren't playing a game of Russian roulette when buying products regulated by different agencies but containing the same chemicals.  A severe downside of this would be the sheer cost of time and money it would take to both implement and carry out these new regulations.  In an already broken economy such regulation reform could cause the country even more economic hardship.  Furthermore, enforced use of different chemicals could result in inferior products.

I was mostly interested in the chemical formerly used in producing plastics: BPA or bisphenol A.  There were five levels of concern in regards to exposure to this chemical as outlined by the National Toxicology Program, and frankly, the definitions were downright shocking and kind of nauseating.  "Reproductive toxicity in adult men and women and malformation is newborns" was defined as "Negligible Concern."  "Developmental toxicity for fetuses, infants, and children (effects on the mammary gland and early puberty in females, and productive toxicity in workers)" was defined as "Minimal Concern".  And "Developmental toxicity for fetuses, infants, and children (effects on the brain,  behavior, and prostate gland)" was classified as "Some Concern".  Very fortunately, many large companies such as Target, Wal-Mart, Costco, and REI have stopped selling products containing BPA and found safer substitutes that sell just as well.

This is a representation of the chemical structure of Bisphenol A.
Image found at viewzone.com

For further research on BPA, I went to these two websites: 
http://www.bisphenol-a.org/about/faq.html?gclid=CIzx3KT-9K8CFWQ0QgodCEP3RQ
http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm064437.html

At the first website, I learned that BPA is used primarily to make polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins.  The products made from BPA's byproducts are things such as electrical and electronic equipment (like CDs and DVDs), automobiles, sports safety equipment, reusable food and drink containers - products most of us use on a daily basis. This website declares that, and I quote, "the weight of scientific evidence clearly supports the safety of BPA and provides strong reassurance that there is no basis for human health concerns from exposure to BPA." 

Are these bottles safe for your child?  I don't know either.
Image found at diapersect.com

Thankfully, the second website shows that the FDA is not so convinced that BPA is not harmful.  In fact, the FDA recognizes potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children.  They also understand the uncertainties surrounding the current research of BPA effects on human health and have commissioned further research to be done on this topic.  The FDA has taken steps to support reducing human exposure to BPA, BUT the FDA is not recommending that families change the use of infant formula or foods, as the benefit of a stable source of good nutrition outweighs the potential risk of BPA exposure.  This recommendation is due to the aforementioned uncertainties regarding BPA research, but I don't believe families should follow such advice when their is such risk to their baby's health and other infant formulas not packaged in BPA-produced containers.

After reading this article, I firmly believe we should use the precautionary principle approach when regulating chemicals in the country.  It may cost more, but I believe human lives should be protected.

Unplugged for 24 hours

Or at least, as much as a college student realistically can be while still going to school.
m

All of my cords in their pre-unplugged phase.
photo taken by me

On Monday, for a period of 24 hours, I did not use my computer, cell phone, television, gameboy, cd player, electric fan, air conditioning, or any other electronic appliance for the sake of convenience or entertainment.  I unplugged appliances in my house that aren't used constantly like the toaster and crockpot.  I also unplugged my cell phone, laptop, and camera chargers and my heating pad.  I did very little driving: from home to school and back.  I didn't make any extra side trips.  And I used electric lighting as little as possible.

One thing I didn't unplug was my alarm clock.  There's only one clock in my house that isn't electronic, and it's not an alarm clock.  Due to the fact that I do have responsibilities (like school) and a clock is something that needs to be on at all times to be useful, I decided i was okay to leave it on.  Also, I did turn on my lamp when it got too dark to see in the house without it.

Most of these changes weren't so bad.  For example, unplugging the things I'm not constantly using wasn't so bad.  It's not so hard to plug a charger back in when you need the power.  And I can find other sources of entertainment when the electricity is off: namely books.  I read a lot normally, but after homework was done, I finished the entirety of short series in one sitting.  In the morning, I didn't use any lights at all and opened the curtains in every single room I went into.  Except, my bathroom has no windows and is pitch dark with the door shut, so I kind of needed light in there.

The tv I don't use much and could easily live without,
especially as compared to my laptop.
photo taken by me

The change I had biggest problems with was the no laptop.  It's not because I can't live without it or that I'm addicted to the internet.  There are several classes in which I take notes, and my linguistic anthropology class is one of them.  This is because I type faster than I write, and my anthro teacher talks really fast.  I really didn't like not being able to get down as much information in my notes.  Not to mention, I do a lot of homework on my laptop and often work at it at school.  So, not using / bringing my laptop with me to school isn't a change I'd be willing to continue.

The rest of the changes, simple as they are, I'm sure I wouldn't have trouble continuing (except maybe the crockpot and toaster thing because I don't live alone).  But in the little corner of the house I call my bedroom, I can minimize my energy use as much as possible.

The fan!!  One of several magical fans that
will lessen our use of the AC.
photo taken by me

One thing I want to mention really quick is that I learned it's almost impossible to escape using any kind of energy at all in our society when interacting with other people.  Even had I walked to school, the cafeteria and library always have on indoor lights, and teachers often use computers or overhead projectors for their classes.  There's no way I could stop all of that during my 24 hour period.  And even had I done this at home, I live with two other people.  Willing as they are to help me with my homework, my parents have responsibilities too - ones that often involve the use of electronically powered machines.

And now, last but not least: given unlimited time and money, what could I do to make my home more energy efficient?

1) Get energy efficient appliances
2) Solar panels on the roof
3) Convince my family to use our electrically powered fans instead of AC
4) Unplug more chargers and the like
5) Small individual AC units in rooms instead of the central one
6) Tear it all down and build a home similar to the Fronteir Project Building :D

Realistically, three and four are pretty much the only options I could actually accomplish due to lack of money and time.