please see uploads on how to help with this assignment.
ENV330
1. Make a numbered list of five ways in which you unnecessarily waste energy
during a typical day and explain how these actions violate any of the scientific
principles of sustainability.
2. Use the law of conservation of matter (mass) and the two laws of
thermodynamics (energy) to explain why even recycling and reuse cannot lead
to sustainability, especially on a planet with an exponentially growing
population using ever-increasing amounts of energy and materials and
producing ever-increasing amounts of waste.
3. Why do we need to make a new energy transition over the next few decades?
4. You are in charge of the world. Make a numbered list of the three most
important components of your strategy for dealing with each of the following:
(a) solid waste, and
(b) hazardous waste.
5. Man-made chemicals are considered innocent until proven guilty – consider
PCB’s, for example. What might be a better policy regarding the introduction of
new chemicals into the environment, considering what we’ve learned the hard
way since the beginning of the industrial revolution?
6. What are three consumption patterns or other aspects of your lifestyle that
directly add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere?
7. Why are most of the largest urban areas located near water?
8. What effect might climate change due to human caused global warming have
on these cities?
9. What are (a) the major causes, (b) consequences and (c) the solutions for
ocean acidification? (d) How will ocean acidification affect your children’s and
grandchildren’s lives?
10.Describe the role and effectiveness of the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC).
11.Compare Curitiba, Brazil and Portland, Oregon (Core Case Study, Chapter 22)
as ecocities. Use the Three Scientific Principles of Sustainability in your
comparisons.
12.Explain how the US local property tax structure leads to poor land use planning
and urban sprawl.
13.Apply the Three Scientific Principles of Sustainability to John Todd’s “Living
Machine” (SCIENCE FOCUS 20.3) approach to waste water treatment and
explain how the system works.
14.What is “environmental justice?
15.Do you believe that we have an ethical responsibility to leave the earth’s
natural systems in as good a condition as they are now or better? Explain.
16.Explain how growing corn in the Midwest of the U.S. to produce ethanol and
protein-rich meat can decrease the production of protein-rich seafood in the
Gulf of Mexico (Core Case Study, Chapter.).
17.Consider Donella Meadows’ contrast between neoclassical economics and
ecological economics (pp. 648-650; Using Lessons from Nature to Make the
Transition).
18.What viewpoints are summarized in Chapter 25?
19.Do you agree or disagree with Theologian Thomas Berry views that the
industrial–consumer society built on the human-centered, planetary
management environmental worldview the “supreme pathology of all history.”
He says, “We can break the mountains apart; we can drain the rivers and flood
ENV330
1. Make a numbered list of five ways in which you unnecessarily waste energy
during a typical day and explain how these actions violate any of the scientific
principles of sustainability.
2. Use the law of conservation of matter (mass) and the two laws of
thermodynamics (energy) to explain why even recycling and reuse cannot lead
to sustainability, especially on a planet with an exponentially growing
population using ever
–
increasing amou
nts of energy and materials and
producing ever
–
increasing amounts of waste.
3. Why do we need to make a new energy transition over the next few decades?
4. You are in charge of the world. Make a numbered list of the three most
important components of y
our strategy for dealing with each of the following:
(a) solid waste, and
(b) hazardous waste.
5. Man
–
made chemicals are considered innocent until proven guilty
–
consider
PCB’s, for example. What might be a better policy regarding the introduction of
n
ew chemicals into the environment, considering what we’ve learned the hard
way since the beginning of the industrial revolution?
6. What are three consumption patterns or other aspects of your lifestyle that
directly add greenhouse gases to the atmosphe
re?
7. Why are most of the largest urban areas located near water?
8. What effect might climate change due to human caused global warming have
ENV330
1. Make a numbered list of five ways in which you unnecessarily waste energy
during a typical day and explain how these actions violate any of the scientific
principles of sustainability.
2. Use the law of conservation of matter (mass) and the two laws of
thermodynamics (energy) to explain why even recycling and reuse cannot lead
to sustainability, especially on a planet with an exponentially growing
population using ever-increasing amounts of energy and materials and
producing ever-increasing amounts of waste.
3. Why do we need to make a new energy transition over the next few decades?
4. You are in charge of the world. Make a numbered list of the three most
important components of your strategy for dealing with each of the following:
(a) solid waste, and
(b) hazardous waste.
5. Man-made chemicals are considered innocent until proven guilty – consider
PCB’s, for example. What might be a better policy regarding the introduction of
new chemicals into the environment, considering what we’ve learned the hard
way since the beginning of the industrial revolution?
6. What are three consumption patterns or other aspects of your lifestyle that
directly add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere?
7. Why are most of the largest urban areas located near water?
8. What effect might climate change due to human caused global warming have
(pp. 648-650;
25.3aLiving More Simply and Lightly on the Earth
On a timescale of hundreds of thousands to millions of years, the earth is resilient and has survived many wounds. Mostly because of human actions, we are living on a planet with a warmer and sometimes harsher climate, less dependable supplies of water, more acidic oceans, extensive soil degradation, higher rates of extinction of species, degradation of key ecosystem services, and widespread ecological disruption. Unless we change our course, scientists warn that these and other harmful environmental changes will intensify.
Figure 25.10 lists 12 guidelines—the “sustainability dozen”—developed by environmental scientists and ethicists for living more sustainably by converting environmental concerns, literacy, and lessons from the earth into environmentally responsible actions for current and future generations. Significant scientific and other evidence indicates that human activities are degrading the earth’s life-support system at an increasing rate. Reversing this path to unsustainability means creating a society that lives within the earth’s ecological limits. In doing this, time is our scarcest resource.
Figure 25.10
Sustainability dozen: Guidelines for living more sustainably.
Some analysts urge people who have a habit of consuming excessively to live more simply and sustainably. Seeking happiness through the pursuit of material things is considered folly by almost every major religion and philosophy. Yet, today’s avalanche of advertising messages encourages people to buy more and more things to fill a growing list of wants as a way to achieve happiness. As American humorist and writer Mark Twain (1835–1910) observed: “Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities.” American comedian George Carlin (1937–2008) put it another way: “A house is just a pile of stuff with a cover on it. It is a place to keep your stuff while you go out and get more stuff.”
However, to others, the more stuff we possess, the more we are possessed by stuff. According to research by psychologists, what a growing number of people really want, deep down, is more community, not more stuff. They want greater and more fulfilling interactions with family, friends, and neighbors. Some people are adopting a lifestyle of voluntary simplicity. It should not be confused with poverty, which is involuntary simplicity. Voluntary simplicity involves learning to live with less stuff, using products and services that have smaller harmful environmental impacts, and creating beneficial environmental impacts. These individuals view voluntary simplicity not as a sacrifice but as a way to have a more fulfilling and satisfying life. Instead of working longer to pay for bigger vehicles and houses, they are spending more time with their loved ones, friends, and nature. Their goals are to consume less, share more, live simply, make friends, treasure family, and enjoy life. Their motto is: “Consume less. Shop less. Live more.”
Practicing voluntary simplicity is a way to apply the Indian philosopher and leader Mahatma Gandhi’s principle of enoughness: “The earth provides enough to satisfy every person’s need but not every person’s greed. . . . When we take more than we need, we are simply taking from each other, borrowing from the future, or destroying the environment and other species.” Most of the world’s major religions have similar teachings.
Living more simply and sustainably starts with asking the question: How much is enough? Similarly, one can ask: What do I really need? These are not easy questions to answer, because people in affluent societies are conditioned to want more and more material possessions and to view them as needs instead of wants. As a result, many people have become addicted to buying more and more stuff as a way to find meaning in their lives, and they often run up large personal debts to feed their stuff habit.
Figure 25.11
lists five steps that some psychologists have advised people to take to help them withdraw from this addiction.
Figure 25.11
Five ways to withdraw from an addiction to buying more and more stuff.
Critical Thinking
1. Make a list of your basic needs. Is your list of needs compatible with your environmental worldview?
Throughout this text, you have encountered lists of ways we can live more lightly on the earth by reducing the size and impact of our ecological footprints.
Figure 25.12
lists eight key ways in which some people are choosing to live more simply and sustainably.
Figure 25.12
Living more lightly: Eight ways to shrink our ecological footprints.
Critical Thinking
1. Which three of the eight steps in Figure 25.12 do you think are the most important? Which of these things do you already do? Which of them are you thinking about doing? How do your answers to these questions relate to
1. the six principles of sustainability, and
2. to your environmental worldview?
Living more sustainably is not easy, and we will not make this transition by relying primarily on technological fixes such as recycling, changing to energy-efficient light bulbs, and driving energy-efficient cars. These are, of course, important things to do. They can help us to shrink our ecological footprints and to feel less guilty about our harmful impacts on our life-support system. However, these efforts cannot solve the environmental problems resulting from excessive consumption of and unnecessary waste of matter and energy resources (see Case Study that follows).
Some analysts have suggested that the environmental movement has focused too much on bad news and laying blame, which has then led people to feel guilty, fearful, apathetic, and powerless. They suggest that we can move beyond these immobilizing feelings by recognizing and avoiding the following three common mental traps that lead to denial, indifference, and inaction:
· Gloom-and-doom pessimism (it is hopeless)
· Blind technological optimism (science and technological fixes will save us)
· Hoping we can move to another planet (see
Science Focus 25.1
)
Avoiding these three traps helps us to be inspired by empowering feelings of realistic hope and action, rather than to be immobilized by feelings of despair and fear.
Critical Thinking
1. Have you fallen into any of these traps? If so, are you aware that you have, and how do you think you could free yourself from either of them?
Science Focus 25.1
Biosphere 3: Can We Move to Mars?
Some people suggest that if the earth is too crowded and polluted, we can move to another planet such as Mars (
Figure 25.A
). The atmosphere on Mars is about 95% and has no oxygen, compared to the earth’s atmosphere which is 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen .
Figure 25.A
Mars: the red planet.
Nerthuz/ Shutterstock.com
This means that people migrating to Mars would have to live inside of a sealed structure with a system to produce . They would need a spacesuit with an oxygen tank to go outside. There are no green plants or animals that could serve as food.
Being outside would expose them to harmful levels of UV radiation from the sun and Mars’s atmosphere prevents liquid water from existing on its surface. Thus, moving to Mars would mean living inside a sealed structure and depending on technological systems for oxygen, water, food, and waste handling.
The average distance from Earth to Mars is 225 million kilometers (140 million miles). Making this trip on today’s fastest spacecraft would take about 300 days or 10 months. During this time, travelers would be confined within a spacecraft. There too, they would be dependent on machines to provide their food, water, oxygen and waste handling.
Elon Musk estimates that getting 12 people to Mars to build a colony would cost $10 billion a person. He thinks he might be able to get it down to around $200,000 a person to get there and another $200,000 to return to the earth, if Mars does not work out.
Sending a few people to learn about Mars makes sense. However, there is no Biosphere 3 to move to because Mars has no life-sustaining biosphere. Instead, critics warn that thinking that we can migrate to Mars to escape the harmful environmental conditions on the earth is an expensive trap. Instead, they call for us to make the earth–our only planetary home–a more sustainable place to live. In other words, there is no ‘planet B’ for us to go to.
Critical Thinking
1. Would you want to move to Mars? Why or why not?
Case Study
The United States, China, and Sustainability
We are living unsustainably. According to the Global Footprint Network, we would need 1.5 planet Earths to sustain indefinitely the resources that the world’s 7.6 billion people consumed in 2018. By 2050, there will be about 9.9 billion people and we would need 3 planet Earths to sustain indefinitely their projected use of resources.
This helps explain why the greatest challenge we face is to learn how to live more sustainably during the next few decades. Meeting this challenge depends largely on the decisions and actions of the United States and China—the two countries that lead the world in resource consumption and production of wastes and pollutants.
The United States has the world’s third largest population and the highest population growth rate of any industrialized country. It also has one of the world’s largest per capita ecological footprints (
Figure 25.12, bottom)—mostly because of high resource use per person. If everyone in the world used resources equal to what the average American uses, we would need about five planet Earths to support them, according to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Global Footprint Network. China has the world’s largest population and total ecological footprint (
Figure 25.13
, top). However, it has a much lower ecological footprint per person than the United States has because of its much lower rate of use of resources per person (Figure 25.13, bottom).
Figure 25.13
Comparison of total and per capital ecological footprints of the United States and China.
(Compiled by the authors using data from the Global Footprint Network 2018 and World Atlas 2017)
Since the 1960s, China has cut its birth rate in half and its population is growing at a rate slower than that of the United States. However, if its middle class continues to grow and consume more resources as projected, China could have the world’s largest per capita footprint within a decade or two.
Because of their economic power and high and growing levels of resource use, the United States and China will play the key roles in determining whether and how we can live more sustainably on the planet that keeps us alive and supports the world’s economies.
In the 1970s, the United States led the world in developing laws and regulations designed to improve environmental quality. However, since 1980 the U.S. environmental community has had to spend most of its time fending off attempts to weaken or repeal the country’s major environmental laws—many of which need updating.
At the federal level, many members of the U.S. Congress think that climate change is a hoax or that it is not caused by human actions and want to weaken or overturn environmental laws and regulations, reduce funding for climate research, and get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency. Thus, the country that led the world into concern for the environment is now reducing its global environmental leadership. Under pressure from coal, oil, and utility companies, certain legislators have blocked efforts to reduce fossil fuel use (especially coal), use a carbon tax or a carbon-trading system to reduce emissions, shift to greater dependence on renewable energy from the sun and wind, and build a modern smart electrical grid to make this shift possible.
China’s leaders have plans to become more environmentally responsible over the next few decades for two reasons. One is to maintain their political power by heading off growing citizen unrest over the country’s severe pollution, as the U.S. government did in the 1970s. The other is to dominate the world’s rapidly growing and profitable green energy and low-carbon businesses. If successful, China could become the world’s leader in making the shift to more sustainable economies and societies and reduce its total environmental footprint.
China produces and sells more wind turbines and solar cell panels than any country in the world and is building a smart electrical grid to distribute electricity produced by the sun and wind throughout the country. It has also developed a growing network of bullet trains that can help reduce car use.
Over the next few decades, the Chinese government plans to depend more on cleaner energy systems and become the global leader in developing a low-carbon economy. It has plans to tax carbon pollution from the burning of fossil fuels and to use the income to shift away from fossil fuel use before the United States does. The goal is to make money by becoming the global leader in making the shift to the new energy transition (
Section 16.1
). However, China burns coal to provide 65% of its electricity and reducing its dependence on abundant and cheap coal is a major economic and political challenge.
The United States and China face similar problems. They have large reserves of coal that can be burned to produce electricity at a low cost, as long as the price of such electricity does not include the harmful environmental effects of burning coal. According to critics, global efforts to reduce air pollution, slow climate change, and rely more on renewable energy from the sun and wind depend heavily on whether China and the United States decide to leave much of their coal reserves in the ground. This is a difficult economic, political, and ethical decision.
25.3bBringing About a Sustainability Revolution in Your Lifetime
The Industrial Revolution, which began around the mid-18th century, was a remarkable global transformation. Now in this century, environmental leaders say it is time for another global transformation—a sustainability revolution.
Figure 25.14
lists some of the major cultural shifts in emphasis that could help bring about a sustainability revolution in your lifetime.
Figure 25.14
Solutions: Some of the cultural shifts in emphasis that scientists say will be necessary to bring about a sustainability revolution.
Critical Thinking:
1. Which of these shifts do you think are most important? Why?
The sustainability movement is a decentralized global movement arising mostly from the bottom up, based on the actions of a variety of individuals and groups throughout the world. One of the leaders in the movement to develop and promote detailed plans for making the shift to more sustainable ways of living is Lester R. Brown (
Individuals Matter 25.3
).
Individuals Matter 25.3
Lester R. Brown: Champion of Sustainability
KFEM/Earth Policy Institute
Lester R. Brown served as president of the Earth Policy Institute, which he founded in 2001 until his retirement in 2015. The purpose of this nonprofit, interdisciplinary research organization has been to provide a plan for a more sustainable future and a roadmap showing how we could get there.
Brown is an interdisciplinary thinker and one of the pioneers of the global sustainability movement. For decades, he has been researching and describing the complex and interconnected environmental issues we face and proposing concrete strategies for dealing with them. The Washington Post called him “one of the world’s most influential thinkers,” and Foreign Policy named him one of the Top Global Thinkers.
Brown’s Plan B for shifting to a more environmentally and economically sustainable future has four main goals:
1. stabilize population growth,
2. stabilize climate change,
3. eradicate poverty, and
4. restore the earth’s natural support systems.
Brown has written or coauthored more than 50 books, which have been translated into more than 40 languages. He has received numerous prizes and awards, including 25 honorary degrees, the United Nations Environment Prize, and Japan’s Blue Planet Prize. In 2012, he was inducted into the Earth Hall of Fame in Kyoto, Japan. He also holds three honorary professorships in China.
Despite the serious environmental challenges we face, Brown sees reasons for hope. They include his understanding that social change can sometimes occur very quickly. He is also encouraged by improvements in fuel efficiency, the emerging shift from using coal to using solar and wind energy to produce electricity, and a growing public understanding of our need to live more sustainably.
A growing number of people call for us to change the way we treat the earth and thus ourselves by living more gently on the planet that sustains us.
Figure 25.15
lists a number of agents of change that can help us shift to a more sustainable path within your lifetime. These seedlings of change, which have been discussed in this book, can break out of their position of slow growth on the bottom of the curve of change in Figure 25.15 and round the bend on the J-curve of rapid exponential growth toward more sustainable living. Supporting and encouraging these agents of change can help us to make the shift to a more sustainable path much faster than you might think.
Figure 25.15
Seedlings of environmental change and hope. The agents of change in this figure are growing slowly. However, at some point, some or all of them could take off, grow exponentially, and help bring about a sustainability revolution within your lifetime.
Critical Thinking:
1. Which two items in each of these four categories do you believe are the most important to promote?
NASA
Here are two pieces of good news about the possibility of bringing about a sustainability revolution over the next few decades. First, social science research reveals that for a major social change to occur, only 5–10% of the people in the world or in a country or locality must become convinced that the change must take place and then act to bring about such change. Second, history also shows that we can bring about change faster than we might think, once we have the courage to leave behind ideas and practices that no longer work and to nurture new trends such as the rapidly growing seedlings of sustainability listed in Figure 25.15.
We have the knowledge to shift from our current unsustainable path to a more sustainable one. Within this century, a small but dedicated group of people from around the world can bring about a sustainability revolution. They will likely understand three things. First, we have been borrowing from the earth and the future and our debt is coming due. Second, as a species we are capable of great things, if we choose to act. Third, once we start on a new path, change can spread through our web-connected global social networks at an amazing pace.
While some skeptics say the idea of a sustainability revolution is idealistic and unrealistic, entrepreneur Paul Hawken, in a graduation address, observed that “the most unrealistic person in the world is the cynic, not the dreamer.” In addition, according to the late Steve Jobs, cofounder of Apple Inc., “The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do.” If these and other individuals had not had the courage to forge ahead with ideas that others called idealistic and unrealistic, very few of the human and environmental achievements that we now celebrate would have happened. Can we shift to a more sustainable world? Yes—if enough people act to make it happen. Join them.
The key to a sustainability revolution is that individuals matter. Each of our choices and actions makes a difference, we are all in this together, and the situation is not hopeless. We can work together to become the generation that avoids environmental chaos and leaves the earth—our only home—in better shape than it is now. It is an exciting and challenging time to be alive.
Big Ideas
· Our environmental worldviews play a key role in how we treat the earth that sustains us and thus in how we treat ourselves.
· We need to become more environmentally literate about how the earth works, how we are affecting its life-support systems that keep us and other species alive, and what we can do to live more sustainably.
· Living more sustainably means learning from nature, living more lightly, and becoming active environmental citizens who leave small environmental footprints on the earth.
· Tying It All TogetherBiosphere 2: A Lesson in Humility
· Biosphere 2 (
Figure 25.1
) was designed to be a self-sustaining life-support system like Biosphere 1—the earth. Instead, numerous unexpected problems occurred. As a result, Biosphere 2 was not able to support eight people for 2 years.
·
·
Joseph Sohm/ Shutterstock.com
· The lesson from this $200 million project is that we do not know how to design a system that can provide even 8 people with the life-supporting services that the earth provides for 7.6 billion people at no cost.
· In this chapter, we discussed the role of human-centered, life-centered, and earth-centered environmental worldviews. We also discussed the controversies over whether we can manage the earth, how we should manage public lands in the United States, the components of environmental literacy, and how we can learn from the earth about how to live more sustainably. In this chapter, and throughout this book, we have argued that we can best do this by applying the six principles of sustainability on individual, community, national, and global levels.
(pp. 648
–
650;
25.3a
Living More Simply
and Lightly on the Earth
On a timescale of hundreds of thousands to millions of years, the earth is
resilient and has survived many wounds. Mostly because of human actions,
we are living on a planet with a warmer and sometimes harsher climate,
less dependable supplies of water, mo
re acidic oceans, extensive soil
degradation, higher rates of extinction of species, degradation of key
ecosystem services, and widespread ecological disruption. Unless we
change our course, scientists warn that these and other harmful
environmental change
s will intensify.
Figure 25.10
lists 12 guidelines
—
the “sustainability dozen”
—
developed by
environmental scientists and ethicists for living more sustainably by
converting environmental concerns, literacy, and lessons from the
earth
into environmentally responsible actions for current and future
generations. Significant scientific and other evidence indicates that human
activities are degrading the earth’s life
–
support system at an increasing
rate. Reversing this path to unsust
ainability means creating a society that
lives within the earth’s ecological limits. In doing this,
time
is our scarcest
resource.
Figure
25.10
Sustainability dozen:
Guidelines for living more sustainably.
(pp. 648-650;
25.3aLiving More Simply
and Lightly on the Earth
On a timescale of hundreds of thousands to millions of years, the earth is
resilient and has survived many wounds. Mostly because of human actions,
we are living on a planet with a warmer and sometimes harsher climate,
less dependable supplies of water, more acidic oceans, extensive soil
degradation, higher rates of extinction of species, degradation of key
ecosystem services, and widespread ecological disruption. Unless we
change our course, scientists warn that these and other harmful
environmental changes will intensify.
Figure 25.10 lists 12 guidelines—the “sustainability dozen”—developed by
environmental scientists and ethicists for living more sustainably by
converting environmental concerns, literacy, and lessons from the earth
into environmentally responsible actions for current and future
generations. Significant scientific and other evidence indicates that human
activities are degrading the earth’s life-support system at an increasing
rate. Reversing this path to unsustainability means creating a society that
lives within the earth’s ecological limits. In doing this, time is our scarcest
resource.
Figure 25.10
Sustainability dozen: Guidelines for living more sustainably.
Chap23
·
23.1
Economic Systems and the Biosphere
· 23.1a
Economic Systems Depend on Natural Capital
· 23.1b
Government Intervention Helps Correct Market Failures
· 23.1c
Models of Economies
· 23.2
Economic Value of Natural Capital and Pollution Control
· 23.2a
Valuing Natural Capital
· 23.2b
Estimating the Future Value of a Resource
· 23.2c
Optimum Levels of Pollution Control and Resource Use
· 23.2d
Cost–Benefit Analysis
· 23.3
Using Economics to Deal With Environmental Problems
· 23.3a
Full-Cost Pricing
· 23.3b
Environmentally Beneficial Subsidies
· 23.3c
Environmental Indicators
· 23.3d
Taxing Pollution and Wastes Instead of Wages and Profits
· 23.3e
Using Cap-and-Trade to Reduce Pollution and Resource Waste
· 23.3f
Labeling Environmentally Beneficial Goods and Services
· 23.3g
Environmental Laws and Regulations
· 23.3h
Selling Services Instead of Products
· 23.4
Poverty and Environmental Problems
· 23.4a
Reducing Poverty
· 23.4b
Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development Goals
· 23.5
Environmentally Sustainable Economies
· 23.5a
Low-Throughput Economies
· 23.5b
Shifting to More Sustainable Economies
· 23.5c
Using Lessons from Nature to Make an Economic Transition
· Tying It All Together
Germany’s Transition to Renewable Energy and Sustainability
·
Chapter Review
·
Critical Thinking
·
Doing Environmental Science
·
Data Analysis
· Germany, one of the world’s most industrialized nations, is undergoing a renewable energy revolution (
Chapter 16
,
Case Study
). The country aims to get 65% of its electricity from renewable energy resources by 2030 and 80% by 2050. It plans to phase out nuclear power as a source of its electricity by 2022 and ultimately to cease relying on coal to produce electricity.
· In 2018, Germany generated about 40% of its electricity using wind farms on land (see
chapter-opening photo
) and at sea (
Figure 23.1
, left), solar energy (
Figure 23.1
, right), and other renewable sources. This surpassed the amount of electricity generated from coal and nuclear energy in Germany. On days when conditions were ideal, Germany produced as much as 80% of its electricity from renewable energy. Since 2000, this shift to renewable energy has created a multibillion-dollar German industry that includes renewable energy production and sales of renewable energy technology around the world.
· Figure 23.1
· This wind farm (left) is located off Germany’s coast, and this rural village (right) in Germany’s Rhineland-Palatinate is typical for many German towns in having several rooftop solar panels.
·
·
·
Luftbild Bertram/AGE Fotostock; iStock.com/Richard Schmidt-Zuper
· This transition was spurred by government legislation aimed at homeowners, businesses, and communities that produce electricity from solar cells, wind, and other renewable energy systems. The law allows them to sell the electricity they produce to Germany’s major power companies at a fixed rate that guarantees their investments will at least break even. With this feed-in tariff system, the government ensures that renewable energy producers will not lose money. In fact, they often make a profit.
· The German government has also promoted the building of wind farms on land and offshore along the North Sea and Baltic Sea coasts (
Figure 23.1
, left). It plans to have 10,000 offshore wind turbines operating by 2030. There are plans to lay more than 3,700 kilometers (2,300 miles) of high-voltage electrical cables throughout parts of the country and under the North Sea as part of a new state-of-the-art electrical grid. Such a grid would be far more efficient than conventional grids, and would help to make Germany’s dependence on electricity from solar and wind energy more dependable.
· Since 1990, solar energy production has risen steadily in Germany, much of it through rooftop solar collectors (
Figure 23.1
, right). Even when the economy was sagging, solar and wind energy production continued to grow in Germany.
Germany’s shift to renewable energy to produce electricity has faced some challenges that we discuss in this chapter. Even critics of the feed-in tariff agree that it has done its job in helping to establish a vibrant renewable energy industry in Germany. Germany’s example shows that economic improvements in renewable energy and improvements in environmental quality can go hand in hand—an example of the win-win principle of sustainability. Some economists argue that shifting to cleaner renewable energy resources, cleaner industrial production, and more sustainable agriculture would help create more environmentally sustainable economies. 23.1aEconomic Systems Depend on Natural Capital
Economics
is the social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services to satisfy people’s needs and wants. In a market-based economic system, buyers and sellers interact to make economic decisions about how goods and services are produced, distributed, and consumed. In a truly free-market economic system, all economic decisions are governed solely by the competitive interactions of supply and demand (
Figure 23.2
). Supply is the amount of a good or service that producers offer for sale at a given price. Demand is the amount of a good or service that people are willing and able to buy at a given price. If the demand for a good or service is greater than the supply, the price rises. If the supply is greater than demand, the price falls.
Figure 23.2
Supply and demand curves for a saleable product in a free market economic system. If all factors except supply, demand, and price are held fixed, market equilibrium occurs at the point where the supply and demand curves intersect.
Data Analysis:
1. How would an increase in the available supply of oil shift the market equilibrium point on this diagram?
Changes in supply and demand can shift one or both curves back and forth, and thus change the equilibrium point. For example, when supply is increased (shifting the blue curve to the right) and demand remains the same, the market price will go down. Similarly, when demand is increased (shifting the red curve to the right) and supply remains the same, the market price will rise.
A truly free-market economy rarely exists in today’s capitalist market systems because factors other than supply and demand influence prices and sales. The primary goal of any business is to make as large a profit as possible for its owners or stockholders. To do so, most businesses try to take business away from their competitors and to exert as much control as possible over the prices of the goods and services they provide.
For example, many companies push for government support such as
subsidies
, or payments intended to help a business grow and thrive, along with tax breaks, trade barriers, and regulations that will give their products an advantage in the market over their competitors’ products. When governments give larger subsidies to some companies or industries than they give to others within the same market, it can create an uneven economic playing field.
In addition, some companies withhold information from consumers about the costs and dangers that their products may pose to human health or to the environment, unless the government requires them to provide such information. Thus, buyers often do not get complete information about the harmful environmental impacts of the goods and services they buy. Some economists say that providing such information for consumers should be one of the requirements of a truly free-market economy.
Most economic systems use three types of capital, or resources, to produce goods and services (
Figure 23.3
). Natural capital (see
Figure 1.3
) includes resources and ecosystem services produced by the earth’s natural processes, which support all life and all economies.
Human capital
includes the physical and mental talents of the people who provide labor, organizational and management skills, and innovation.
Manufactured capital
, also called built capital, includes tools, materials, machinery, factories, roads, and other infrastructure that people create using natural resources.
Figure 23.3
Three types of resources are used to produce goods and services.
Center: Elena Elisseeva/ Shutterstock.com. Right center: Michael Shake/ Shutterstock.com. Right: iStock.com/Yuri
· 23.1bGovernment Intervention Helps Correct Market Failures
· Markets usually work well in guiding the efficient production and distribution of private goods. However, experience shows that they cannot be relied on to provide adequate levels of public services, such as national security, police and firefighters, and environmental protection. Economists generally refer to such deficiencies as market failures. An important example of a market failure is the inability of markets to prevent the degradation of open-access resources, such as clean air, the open ocean, and the earth’s overall life-support system. Such vital resources are not bought and sold in the marketplace, because they are owned by no one and available for use by everyone at little or no charge.
· Governments intervene in market systems to provide various public services and to help correct market failures. In the 1970s, the U.S. government passed laws to control air pollution (
Chapter 18
) and water pollution (
Chapter 20
). Without such laws, air and water pollution in the United States would be much worse than it is.
· One reason why markets often fail to provide environmental protection is their failure to assign monetary value to the benefits provided by the earth’s natural capital and to the harmful effects of various human activities on the environment and on human health. For example, the benefits of leaving an old-growth forest undisturbed (ecosystem services such as water purification and soil erosion reduction) usually are not weighed against the monetary value of cutting the timber in the forest. Thus, many old-growth forests have been cleared for their timber, while their non-timber natural capital value, which can be much higher than the value of their timber, is lost. (See
Science Focus 10.1
, and the next section of this chapter.) Governments can use economic tools such as subsidies and taxes to correct this market failure.
23.1cModels of Economies
Economic growth
is an increase in the capacity of a nation, state, city, or company to provide goods and services to people. Today, a typical industrialized country depends on a
high-throughput economy
, which attempts to boost economic growth by increasing the flow of matter and energy resources through the economic system to produce more goods and services (
Figure 23.4
). Such an economy produces valuable goods and services. However, it also converts large quantities of high-quality matter and energy resources into wastes, pollution, and low-quality heat, which tend to flow into planetary sinks (air, water, soil, and organisms).
Figure 23.4
The high-throughput economies of most of the world’s more-developed countries rely on continually increasing the flow of energy and matter resources to promote economic growth.
Critical Thinking:
1. What are three ways in which you regularly add to this throughput of matter and energy through your daily activities?
Economic development
focuses on creating economies that serve to improve human well-being by meeting basic human needs for items such as food, shelter, physical and economic security, and good health. The world’s countries vary greatly in their levels of economic growth and economic development.
For more than 200 years, economists have debated whether there are limits to economic growth. Neoclassical economists, assume that the potential for economic growth is essentially unlimited and is necessary for providing profits for businesses and jobs for workers. Neoclassical economists consider natural capital important but assume that people can find substitutes for essentially any resource or ecosystem service that we might deplete or degrade.
Ecological economists disagree. They point out that there are no substitutes for many vital natural resources, such as climate control, air and water purification, pollination, topsoil renewal, and nutrient cycling. In contrast to neoclassical economists, they view human economic systems as subsystems of the biosphere that depend heavily on the natural resources and ecosystem services that make up the earth’s irreplaceable natural capital (
Figure 23.5
).
Figure 23.5
Ecological economists view human economies as subsystems of the biosphere that depend on natural resources and ecosystem services provided by the sun and earth.
Critical Thinking:
1. Can you think of any human activities that do not depend on natural capital? Explain.
Courtesy of JPL/NASA
According to ecological economists, economic growth becomes unsustainable when it depletes or degrades various irreplaceable forms of natural capital, on which all human economic systems depend.
According to some estimates, humanity is currently using the renewable resources of 1.5 planet Earths and could be using that of 2 planet Earths by 2030. In other words, we are living unsustainably by borrowing renewable resources from future generations. This is a violation of the ethical principle of sustainability that states we should leave the planet’s life-support systems in as good a condition or better than what we now experience.
2
Number of planet Earths that could be needed to sustain the world’s projected population and total renewable resource use in 2030
According to ecological and environmental economists, including Herman Daly, E.F. Schumacher, Kenneth Boulding, E. J. Mishan, Joseph H. Vogel, and John M. Gowdy today’s economies are unsustainable because they:
· Deplete the earth’s natural capital by placing little value on its importance in sustaining the earth’s life and economies.
· Focus on increasing economic growth without distinguishing between sustainable and unsustainable forms of growth.
· Rely on GNP economic indicators that do not distinguish between harmful and beneficial forms of economic growth.
· Fail to use full-cost pricing of goods and services that consumers need to evaluate the harmful environmental and health impacts of what they buy.
· Encourage people to consume more and more to satisfy seeming endless wants as a way to achieve happiness.
· Fail to distribute enough of the benefits of economic growth to meet everyone’s basic need and eliminate poverty.
·
See population growth as a way to have more consumers.
· Deny that there are resource or environmental limits or assume that technology can overcome them.
· Pass environmental and resource supply problems on to future generations by discounting the future to justify current economic growth.
Most ecological and environmental economists call for
environmentally sustainable economic development
to help correct some of the problems just listed. It uses political and economic systems to encourage environmentally beneficial and more sustainable forms of economic improvement, and to discourage environmentally harmful and unsustainable forms of economic growth that degrade natural capital.
Critical Thinking
1. Do you think that the economy of the country where you live is sustainable or unsustainable? Explain.
23.2bEstimating the Future Value of a Resource
One tool used by economists, businesses, and investors to determine the value of a resource is the
discount rate
—an estimate of a resource’s future economic value compared to its present value. It is based on the idea that today’s value of a resource may be higher than its value in the future. Thus, its future value should be discounted. The size of the discount rate (usually given as a percentage) is a key factor affecting how a resource such as a forest or fishery is used or managed.
At a zero discount rate, for example, the timber from a stand of redwood trees (
Figure 23.7
) worth $1 million today will still be worth $1 million 50 years from now. However, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, the World Bank, and most businesses typically use a 10% annual discount rate to estimate the future value of a resource. At this rate as the years go by, the timber in a stand of redwood trees will be worth increasingly less, and within 45 years, it will be worth less than $10,000. Using this discount rate, it makes sense from an economic standpoint for the owner of this resource to cut these trees down as quickly as possible.
Figure 23.7
Economists have tried several methods for estimating the economic value of ecosystem services, recreation opportunities, and beauty in ecosystems such as this patch of redwood forest.
Critical Thinking:
1. What discount rate, if any, would you assign to this stand of trees?
Sharon Eisenzopf/ Shutterstock.com
However, this economic analysis does not take into account the immense economic value of the ecosystem services provided by forests (see
Figure 10.2
, left and
Figure 23.6
). Such services include the absorption of precipitation and gradual release of water and other nutrients, natural flood control, water and air purification, prevention of soil erosion, removal and storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and protection of biodiversity within a variety of forest habitats.
A high discount rate (5–10%) makes it difficult to sustain these important ecosystem services. If their economic values were included, it would make more sense now, and in the future, to preserve large areas of redwoods for the ecosystem services they provide and to find substitutes for redwood products. However, while these ecosystem services are vital for the earth as a whole and for future generations, they do not provide the current owner of the redwoods with any monetary return.
Setting discount rates can be difficult and controversial. Proponents cite several reasons for using high discount rates. One argument is that inflation can reduce the value of future earnings on a resource. Another is that innovation or changes in consumer preferences can make a product or resource obsolete. For example, the plastic composites made to look like redwood may reduce the future use and market value of timber from a redwood forest (Figure 23.7).
Critics point out that high discount rates encourage rapid exploitation of resources for immediate payoffs, thus making long-term sustainable use of most renewable natural resources virtually impossible. They argue that a 0% or even a negative discount rate should be used to protect unique, scarce, and irreplaceable resources such as old-growth forests. A negative discount rate would result in the value of a forest or other resource increasing over time. Some economists argue that as ecosystem services continue to be degraded, they will only become more valuable, so a negative discount rate is the only type that makes sense. They point out that zero or negative discount rates of -1 to -3% would make it profitable to use nonrenewable and renewable resources more slowly and in more sustainable ways.
Critical Thinking
1. If you owned a forested area, would you want the discount rate for resources such as trees from the forest to be positive, zero, or negative? Explain.
23.2cOptimum Levels of Pollution Control and Resource Use
An important concept in environmental economics is that of optimum levels for pollution control and resource use. In the early days of a new coal mining operation, for example, the cost of extracting coal is typically low enough to make it easy for developers to recover their investments by selling their product. However, the cost of removal goes up with each additional unit of coal taken. Economists refer to this as the
marginal cost
—any increase in the cost of producing an additional unit of a product. After most of the more readily accessible coal has been removed from a mine, the marginal cost is too high and at some point, taking what is left becomes unaffordable. This can change if some factor such as scarcity raises the value of the coal remaining in the mine.
Figure 23.8
shows this in terms of supply, demand, and equilibrium. The point at which removing more coal is not worth the marginal cost is where the demand curve crosses the supply curve, theoretically the optimum level of resource use.
Figure 23.8
Optimum resource use: The cost of extracting coal (blue line) from a particular mine rises with each additional unit removed. Mining a certain amount of coal is profitable, but at some point, the marginal cost of further removal exceeds the monetary benefits (red line).
Critical Thinking:
1. How would the location of the optimum level of resource use shift if the price of coal doubled?
nito/ Shutterstock.com
You might think that the best solution for pollution is total cleanup. In fact, there are optimum levels for various kinds of pollution. This is because the cost of pollution control goes up for each additional unit of a pollutant removed from the environment. This increase in cost per additional unit is the marginal cost of pollution control. The main reason for the increasing cost is that, as concentrations of a pollutant from the air, water, or soil get lower, it takes larger amounts of energy to remove the pollutant. At some point, the cost of removing more pollutants is greater than the harmful costs of the pollution to society. That point is the equilibrium point, or the optimum level for pollution cleanup.
23.2dCost–Benefit Analysis
Another widely used tool for making economic decisions about how to control pollution and manage resources is
cost–benefit analysis
. In this process, analysts compare estimated costs and benefits of actions such as implementing a pollution control regulation, building a dam on a river, and preserving an area of forest. Economists also use cost–benefit analysis to estimate the optimum level of pollution cleanup or resource use (Figure 23.8).
Making a cost–benefit analysis involves determining who benefits and who is harmed by a particular regulation or project and estimating the monetary values (costs) of those benefits and harms. Direct costs involving land, labor, materials, and pollution-control technologies are often easy to estimate. However, estimates of indirect costs, such as a project’s effects on air and water, are not considered in the marketplace. Analysts can put estimated price tags on human life, good health, clean air and water, and natural capital such as an endangered species, a forest, or a wetland. However, such monetary value estimates vary widely depending on the assumptions, value judgments, and discount factors used by the estimators.
Because of these drawbacks, a cost–benefit analysis can lead to a wide range of benefits and costs with a lot of room for error, and this is a source of controversy. For example, one cost–benefit analysis sponsored by a U.S. industry estimated that compliance with a regulation written to protect American workers from vinyl chloride would cost $65 billion to $90 billion. In the end, complying with the regulation cost the industry less than $1 billion. A study by the Economic Policy Institute of Washington, D.C., found that the estimated costs projected by industries for complying with proposed U.S. environmental regulations are often inflated in an effort by industries to avoid or delay complying with such regulations.
If conducted fairly and accurately, cost–benefit analysis can be a helpful tool for making economic decisions, but it always includes uncertainties. Environmental economists advocate using the following guidelines to minimize possible abuses and errors in cost–benefit analysis involving some part of the environment:
· State all assumptions used.
· Include estimates of the ecosystem services provided by the ecosystems involved.
· Estimate short- and long-term benefits and costs for all affected population groups.
· Compare the costs and benefits of alternative courses of action.
According to Gaylord Nelson, founder of the world’s first Earth Day on April 22, 1970: “When it is asked how much it will cost to protect the environment, one more question should be asked: How much will it cost our civilization if we do not?”
· 23.3aFull-Cost Pricing
· The
market price, or direct price, that people pay for a product or service usually does not include all of the indirect, or external, costs of harm to the environment and human health associated with providing and using them. Such costs are called hidden costs.
· For example, if someone buys a new car, the price includes the direct, or internal, costs of raw materials, labor, shipping, and a markup for dealer profit. In using the car, owners pay additional direct costs for gasoline, maintenance, repairs, and insurance.
· However, the extraction and processing of raw materials to make a car uses energy and mineral resources, disturbs land, produces solid and hazardous wastes, pollutes air and water, and releases climate-changing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These hidden external costs can have harmful effects on people, economies, and on the earth’s life-support system.
· Because these harmful external costs are not included in the market price of a car, most people do not connect them with car ownership. Still, the car buyer and other people in a society pay these hidden costs sooner or later, in the forms of poorer health, higher expenses for health care and insurance, higher taxes for pollution control, traffic congestion, and degradation of natural capital.
· Ecological economists and environmental experts call for including external costs of harm to the environment and human health in the market prices of goods and services. This practice is called full-cost pricing, and is one of the six principles of sustainability. Failure to include the estimated harmful environmental and health costs in the market prices of goods and services is viewed as one of the major causes of the environmental problems we face.
· According to its proponents (
Individuals Matter 23.1
), full-cost pricing would reduce resource waste, pollution, and environmental degradation and improve human health. It would also encourage producers to invent more resource-efficient and less-polluting methods of production, and it would inform consumers about the environmental and health effects of the goods and services they buy. For example, if the harmful environmental and health costs of mining and burning coal to produce electricity (
Figure 23.9
) were included in the market prices of coal-fired electricity, coal would be much more expensive and likely would be replaced by improved energy efficiency and less environmentally harmful resources such as natural gas and solar and wind power.
· Individuals Matter 23.1
· Paul Hawken: Businessman and Environmental Champion
·
· Beck Starr/WireImage/Getty Images
· Paul Hawken understands both business and ecology. He is an entrepreneur and a visionary environmental and social activist. In addition to starting several businesses, he has authored several widely acclaimed books that have been published in over 50 countries in 27 languages and have sold more than 2 million copies.
· One of Hawken’s major themes has been the importance of full-cost pricing. As Hawken has pointed out in many of his writings, the fact that many harmful environmental and health costs are externalized is a major cause of the global loss and degradation of natural capital. This happens because of a failure to implement full-cost pricing and an obsession with the growth of gross domestic product (GDP) regardless of its effect on the environment. With our current pricing system, Hawken says, “we are stealing the future, selling it in the present, and calling it GDP, and patting ourselves on the back.”
· Hawken calls for us to modify our economies in ways that will sustain the natural capital that in turn sustains all life and economies. He is not against economic growth. Instead, he calls for using government subsidies and taxes to encourage forms of growth that increase environmental sustainability and social justice and to discourage forms of growth that harm the environment and human health.
· According to Hawken, “We have the capacity to create a remarkably different economy: one that can restore ecosystems and protect the environment while bringing forth innovation, prosperity, meaningful work, and true security.” This shift “is based on the simple but powerful proposition that all natural capital must be valued. … If we have doubts about how to value a 500-year-old tree, we need only ask how much would it cost to make a new one from scratch? Or a new river? Or a new atmosphere?”
· Hawken has worked with business and government leaders throughout the world and won numerous awards for his work. However, his greatest accomplishment may be getting many of us to rethink our ideas about economics, business, and the environment.
· Figure 23.9
· Most of the harmful environmental and health effects of strip-mining coal and burning it to produce electricity are not included in the cost of electricity.
·
·
·
Andreas Reinhold/ Shutterstock.com
· Putting full-cost pricing into practice would result in some industries and businesses disappearing or remaking themselves. New businesses would also appear. This is a normal and revitalizing process in a dynamic and creative capitalist economy. Shifting to full-cost pricing over a decade or two would give some environmentally harmful businesses enough time to transform themselves into profitable, environmentally beneficial businesses.
· There are three reasons why full-cost pricing is not used more widely. First, most producers of harmful products and services would have to charge more for them, and some would go out of business. Naturally, these producers oppose such pricing. Second, many environmental and health costs are difficult to estimate. Third, many environmentally harmful businesses use their political and economic power to obtain government subsidies and tax breaks that help them increase their profits and, in some cases, stay in business.
23.3bEnvironmentally Beneficial Subsidies
Some subsides, called perverse subsidies, lead to environmental damage and harmful health effects. Examples include depletion subsidies and tax breaks for extracting minerals and fossil fuels, cutting timber on public lands, and irrigating with low-cost water. These subsidies and tax breaks distort the economic playing field and create a huge economic incentive for unsustainable resource waste, depletion, and environmental degradation.
Environmental scientist Norman Myers estimates that these perverse subsidies and tax breaks cost the world’s governments (taxpayers) at least $2 trillion a year—an average $3.8 million a minute. This amount is larger than all but a few of the national economies in the world and twice as large as all of the world’s military spending. Myers also estimates that perverse government subsidies and tax breaks cost the average American taxpayer $2,000 per year.
$3.8 Million
Estimated cost per minute to the world’s taxpayers of perverse subsidies
A number of environmental scientists and ecological economists call for phasing out environmentally harmful subsidies and tax breaks and phasing in environmentally beneficial subsidies and tax breaks. More subsidies and tax breaks would go businesses involved in pollution prevention, waste prevention, sustainable forestry and agriculture, conservation of water supplies, energy-efficiency improvements, renewable energy use, and measures to slow projected climate change.
However, economically and politically powerful interests receiving these environmentally harmful subsidies spend a lot of time and money lobbying, or trying to influence governments to continue and even to increase their subsidies. For example, the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries in the United States are mature and highly profitable industries that get billions of dollars in government subsidies and tax breaks every year. Such industries also lobby against subsidies and tax breaks for their more environmentally beneficial competitors such as solar and wind energy.
Some countries have reduced perverse subsidies. Japan, France, and Belgium have phased out all coal subsidies. China has cut coal subsidies by about 73% and has imposed a tax on high-sulfur coals.
Making a shift from environmentally harmful to environmentally beneficial subsidies and tax breaks on a global basis over the next 2 to 3 decades would encourage businesses to make the transition from environmentally harmful to more environmentally beneficial goods and services.
Critical Thinking
· Can you think of any problems that might result from phasing out environmentally harmful government subsidies and tax breaks and phasing in environmentally beneficial ones? How might such a subsidy shift affect your lifestyle?
23.3cEnvironmental Indicators
Economic growth is usually measured by the percentage of change per year in a country’s
gross domestic product (GDP)
: the annual market value of all goods and services produced by all firms and organizations, foreign and domestic, operating within a country. A country’s economic growth per person is measured by changes in the
per capita GDP
: the GDP divided by the country’s total population at midyear.
GDP and per capita GDP indicators provide a standardized, useful method for measuring and comparing the economic outputs of nations. However, the GDP was deliberately designed to measure such outputs without taking into account their beneficial or harmful environmental or health impacts. Many environmental economists and environmental scientists call for the development and widespread use of new indicators—called
environmental indicators
—to help monitor environmental quality and human well-being.
One such indicator is the genuine progress indicator (GPI)—the GDP plus the estimated value of beneficial transactions that meet basic needs, minus the estimated harmful environmental, health, and social costs of all transactions. Examples of beneficial transactions included in the GPI are unpaid volunteer work, health care provided by family members, child care, and housework. Harmful costs that are subtracted to arrive at the GPI include the costs of pollution, resource depletion and degradation, and crime.
Figure 23.10
compares the per capita GDP and GPI for the United States between 1950 and 2004 (the last year in which the GPI was compiled). While the per capita GDP rose sharply over this period, the per capita GPI stayed flat, or in some cases even declined slightly. This shows that even if a nation’s economy is growing, its people are not necessarily better off. Environmental economists developed the GPI with the hope that governments would adopt it. However, it has not been implemented by any of the world’s economies.
Figure 23.10
Monitoring environmental progress: The per capita gross domestic product (GDP) compared with the per capita genuine progress indicator (GPI) in the United States between 1950 and 2004.
Critical Thinking:
1. Would you favor making widespread use of this or similar green economic indicators? Why or why not? Why do you think this has not been done?
(Compiled by the authors using data from Redefining Progress.)
Another environmental indicator is the Global Green Economy Index (GGEI). It measures the performances of 130 nations in areas of leadership on climate change, energy efficiency, markets and investments, and natural capital, based on analysis by a panel of experts. In 2018, the top five ranked countries on the GGEI were Sweden, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, and Finland. The United States ranked 42nd.
These and other environmental indicators now being developed are far from perfect. However, without such indicators, it will be difficult to monitor the overall effects of human activities on human health, on the environment, and on the planet’s natural capital and to evaluate the effectiveness of solutions to the environmental problems humanity faces. Such indicators are also helpful for finding the best ways to improve environmental quality and life satisfaction.
23.3dTaxing Pollution and Wastes Instead of Wages and Profits
Another way to discourage pollution and resource waste is to tax them. Green taxes could be levied on a per-unit basis on the amount of pollution and hazardous waste produced by a farm, business, or industry, and on the use of fossil fuels, nitrogen fertilizer, timber, minerals, water, and other resources. This approach would implement the full-cost pricing principle of sustainability and increase our beneficial environmental impact.
To many analysts, the tax systems in most countries are backward. They discourage what we want more of—jobs, income, and profit-driven innovation—and encourage what we want less of—pollution, resource waste, and environmental degradation. A more environmentally sustainable economic and political system would lower taxes on labor, income, and wealth, and raise taxes on environmental activities that produce pollution, wastes, and environmental degradation. Some 2,500 economists, including eight Nobel Prize winners in economics, have endorsed this tax-shifting concept.
Proponents list three requirements for the successful shift to more environmentally sustainable or green taxes:
· Phase in green taxes over 10 to 20 years to allow business to plan for change.
· Reduce income, payroll, or other taxes by an amount equal to that of the green taxes so that there would be no net increase in taxes.
· Design a safety net for the poor and lower-middle class individuals who would suffer financially from any new taxes on essentials such as fuel, water, electricity, and food.
Figure 23.11
lists some of the advantages and disadvantages of using green taxes.
Figure 23.11
Trade-offs: Using green taxes to help reduce pollution and resource waste has advantages and disadvantages.
Critical Thinking:
1. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Why or why not?
Top: Chuong Vu/ Shutterstock.com. Bottom: EduardSV/ Shutterstock.com.
In Europe and the United States, polls indicate that once such tax shifting is explained to voters, 70% of them support the idea. Germany’s green tax on fossil fuels, introduced in 1999, has reduced pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, helped to create up to 250,000 new jobs, lowered taxes on wages, and greatly increased the use of renewable energy resources. Costa Rica, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, and the Netherlands have raised taxes on several environmentally harmful activities while cutting taxes on wages, investment income, or both.
To help reduce climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions, since 1997, Costa Rica has imposed a 3.5% tax on the market values of any fossil fuels that are burned in the country. The tax revenues go into a national forest fund set up for paying indigenous communities to help protect the forests around them, thereby helping to reverse deforestation (
Chapter 10
,
Core Case Study
). The fund is also intended to help Costa Ricans work their way out of poverty. Costa Rica has also taxed water use to reduce water waste and pollution, and the tax revenues are used to pay villagers living upstream to reduce their inputs of water pollutants.
The U.S. Congress has not enacted green taxes, mostly because of opposition by the automobile, fossil fuel, mining, chemical and other politically powerful industries. These opponents claim that green taxes will harm the economy and consumers by forcing producers to raise the prices of their goods and services. In addition, most voters have been conditioned to oppose any new taxes and have not been educated about the economic and environmental benefits of a tax-shifting approach that would improve environmental quality with no net increase in their taxes.
23.3eUsing Cap-and-Trade to Reduce Pollution and Resource Waste
In one incentive-based regulation system, the government decides on acceptable levels of total pollution or resource use; sets limits, or caps, to maintain these levels; and gives or sells companies a certain number of tradable pollution or resource-use permits governed by the caps.
With this cap-and-trade approach, a permit holder that does not use its entire allocation can save credits for future expansion, use them in other parts of its operation, or sell them to other companies. The United States has used this approach to reduce the emissions of sulfur dioxide (see
Chapter 18) and several other air pollutants. Tradable rights could also be established among countries to help preserve biodiversity and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (
Figure 19.23
) and other regional and global pollutants.
Figure 23.12
lists the advantages and disadvantages of using tradable pollution and resource-use permits (cap-and-trade). The effectiveness of such programs depends on how high or low the initial cap is set and on the rate at which the cap is regularly reduced to encourage further innovation.
Figure 23.12
Trade-offs: Cap-and Trade: Using tradable pollution and resource-use permits to reduce pollution and resource waste has advantages and disadvantages.
Critical Thinking:
1. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Why or why not?
Top: M. Shcherbyna/ Shutterstock.com.
· 23.3fLabeling Environmentally Beneficial Goods and Services
· Product eco-labeling and certification can encourage companies to develop environmentally beneficial (green) products and services and can help consumers to select such products and services. Eco-labeling programs have been developed in Europe, Japan, Canada, and the United States. The U.S. Green Seal labeling program has certified more than 335 products and services as environmentally friendly based on life-cycle analysis. Eco-labels are also used to identify fish caught by sustainable methods (certified by the Marine Stewardship Council) and to certify timber produced and harvested by sustainable methods (evaluated by organizations such as the Forest Stewardship Council, see
Chapter 10,
Improving Management of Forest Fires
).
· Eco-labeling systems usually include a simple rating scale such as 0–10, applied to factors such as environmental damage, climate impact, carbon footprint, air and water pollution, and energy, water, and pesticide use. Such eco-labeling informs consumers about the environmental impacts of what they buy and helps them vote with their wallets.
· Providing easily understandable ratings on the sustainability of goods and services helps expose and reduce
greenwashing
, a deceptive practice that some businesses use to spin environmentally harmful products and services as green, clean, or environmentally beneficial. For example, in 2008, the U.S. coal industry spent about $45 million on a successful public relations campaign to imbed the words “clean coal” in the minds of Americans, even though certain harmful aspects of mining and using coal will always make it by far the dirtiest fossil fuel (
Chapter 15
, and Figure 23.9).
· Other examples of greenwashing, closer to home for most people, can mislead consumers and distort market information, making it harder for environmentally beneficial products and services to compete. For example, phrases like “environmentally friendly” and “eco-conscious” placed on cleaning product labels can be meaningless or false. Consumers who want to buy green must be careful to choose products that actually are environmentally friendly.
· 23.3gEnvironmental Laws and Regulations
· Environmental regulation is a form of government intervention in the marketplace that is widely used to help control or prevent pollution and environmental degradation and to encourage more efficient resource use. It involves enacting and enforcing laws that set pollution standards, regulate the release of toxic chemicals into the environment, and protect certain slowly replenished resources such as public forests, parks, and wilderness areas (
Figure 23.13
) from unsustainable use.
· Figure 23.13
· Environmental regulations have helped preserve irreplaceable resources such as this mountainous National Wilderness Area near Aspen, Colorado.
·
·
· Charles Kogod/National Geographic Image Collection
·
Such regulation is another way to help implement the full-cost pricing principle of sustainability, because it forces companies to include more of the costs of pollution control and other regulated aspects in the prices of their products. Opponents of regulation claim that it can slow economic growth and lead to job losses
· However, proponents of regulation point to the results of China’s lax environmental regulations. While that country’s economy has been growing rapidly since 1980, its environmental problems have also multiplied dramatically. Now, according to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, its major cities suffer from serious air pollution. About 57% of its urban groundwater, used for drinking water for hundreds of millions of people, and 43% of its surface water is too polluted to use. Its topsoil is severely polluted and some of its food is tainted with harmful chemicals. These problems are leading to civil unrest in China, as well as to a less favorable standing in the global marketplace.
· Most environmental regulation in the United States and in many other countries has involved passing laws that are typically enforced through a command-and-control approach. Critics say that this strategy can unnecessarily increase costs and discourage innovation, because many of these government regulations concentrate on cleanup instead of prevention. Some regulations also set compliance deadlines that are often too short to allow companies to find innovative ways to reduce pollution and waste.
· A different approach favored by many economists and environmental and business leaders is to use incentive-based environmental regulations. Rather than to require all companies in a particular market to follow the same fixed procedures or use the same technologies, governments can establish long-term goals and heavy penalties for not achieving the goals. This approach uses the economic forces of the marketplace to encourage businesses to be innovative in reducing pollution and resource waste.
·
Several European nations use such innovation-friendly environmental regulation, which involves setting goals, freeing industries to meet the goals in any way that works, and allowing enough time for innovation. This has motivated several companies to develop green products and industrial processes that have created jobs. It has also helped some companies to boost their profits while becoming more competitive in national and international markets.
23.3hSelling Services Instead of Products
One approach to working toward more environmentally beneficial economies is to sell certain services in place of the products that provide those services. With this approach, a manufacturer or service provider makes more money if the production of its product involves minimal material use and pollution, and if the product lasts, is energy efficient, produces as little pollution as possible while in use, and is easy to maintain, repair, reuse, or recycle (see
Chapter 21
, Core Case Study).
Such an economic shift is under way in some businesses. Since 1992, Xerox has been leasing most of its copy machines as part of its mission to provide document services instead of selling photocopiers. When a customer’s service contract expires, Xerox takes the machine back for reuse or remanufacture. It has a goal of sending no material to landfills or incinerators. To save money, Xerox designs machines to have the fewest possible parts, be energy efficient, and emit as little noise, heat, ozone, and chemical waste as possible.
Learning from Nature
At the flooring service company Interface, engineers studied the floors of tropical forests to design a best-selling, nature-based carpet pattern that allows installers to reduce carpet waste and installation time.
In Europe, Carrier has begun shifting from selling heating and air conditioning equipment to providing indoor heating and cooling services. The company makes higher profits by leasing and installing energy-efficient equipment that is durable and easy to rebuild or recycle. Carrier also makes money through helping clients save energy by adding insulation, eliminating heat losses, and boosting energy efficiency in their offices and homes.
Critical Thinking
· Can you think of any drawbacks to leasing a service provided by a product instead of buying the product? What service or services would you consider leasing?
23.4aReducing Poverty
Poverty
occurs when people cannot meet their basic needs for food, water, shelter, health care, and education. People suffering from extreme poverty (
Figure 23.14
) live on less than $1.90 a day. According to the World Bank and the World Data Lab, 8.2% of the world’s people lived in extreme poverty in 2018—down from 36% in 1990. This is good news but the bad news is that 627 million people—almost twice the U.S. population—lived in extreme poverty in 2018.
Figure 23.14
This 3-year-old girl was sleeping in her family’s shack in a slum in Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
James P. Blair/National Geographic Creative
Some analysts are alarmed at the widening gap between rich and poor countries and between super-rich individuals and the rest of the world. According to Oxfam International,
82%
of wealth generated worldwide in 2017 went to the richest 1% of the world’s population, while the 3.8 billion of the poorest half of the world’s population had no increase in their wealth. Eighty-five billionaires have as much of the world’s wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population. Some economists say that part of this wealth will trickle down to the poor and middle class. Others point out that for three decades, instead of trickling down, most of the world’s wealth has been flowing up to rich individuals, corporations, and countries at an increasing rate. This has greatly increased the economic gap between the rich and the poor and has reduced the middle class.
82%
Percentage of wealth generated worldwide in 2017 that went to the richest 1% of the world’s population
Poverty causes a number of harmful health effects such as hunger, malnutrition (
Figure 12.3
), and infectious disease, and it kills an estimated 11 million people per year—more deaths than from any other major cause (see
Figure 17.21
). Another effect of poverty is illness caused by limited access to adequate sanitation facilities and clean drinking water. More than one-third of world’s people have no bathroom facilities and are forced to use backyards, alleys, ditches, and streams. As a result, one of every nine of the world’s people get water for drinking, washing, and cooking from sources polluted by human and animal feces. Poverty also leads to harmful health effects and deaths from indoor air pollution (
Figure 18.15
).
In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that malnutrition and indoor air pollution, mostly related to poverty, were killing about 7 million children under age 5 each year—an average of 19,000 young children per day. This is equivalent to 95 fully loaded 200-passenger airliners crashing every day with no survivors. The news media rarely cover this ongoing human tragedy.
To reduce poverty and its harmful effects, governments, businesses, international lending agencies, and wealthy individuals could undertake the following:
· Mount a massive global effort to combat malnutrition and the infectious diseases that kill millions of people.
· Provide universal primary school education for all children and for the world’s 750 million illiterate adults. Illiteracy can foster terrorism and strife within countries by contributing to the creation of large numbers of unemployed individuals who have little hope of improving their lives or those of their children.
· Help less-developed countries reduce their population growth, mostly by elevating the social and economic status of women, reducing poverty, and providing access to family planning.
· Focus on sharply reducing the total and per capita ecological footprints of more-developed countries such as the United States and less-developed countries such as China and India.
· Make large investments in small-scale infrastructure such as solar-cell power facilities for rural villages and sustainable agriculture projects to help less-developed nations work toward more energy-efficient and environmentally beneficial economies.
· Encourage lending agencies to make small loans to poor people who want to increase their income (see the Case Study that follows).
Case Study
Microlending
Most of the world’s able-bodied poor people want to work and earn enough to climb out of poverty and make a better life for themselves and their families. With small loans, they could buy what they need to start farms or small businesses. However, few of them have credit records or assets that they could use as collateral to secure the loans.
For over three decades, an innovation called microlending, or microfinance, has helped a number of people living in poverty to deal with this problem. In 1983, economist Muhammad Yunus started the Grameen (Village) Bank in Bangladesh, a country with a high poverty rate and a rapidly growing population. Unlike commercial banks, the Grameen Bank is essentially owned and run by borrowers and by the Bangladeshi government. Since it was founded, the bank has provided more than $8 billion in microloans of $50 to $500 at low interest rates to more than 7 million impoverished people in Bangladesh who do not qualify for loans at traditional banks.
Most of these loans have been used by women to start small businesses, plant crops, buy small irrigation pumps, buy cows and chickens for producing and selling milk and eggs, and buy bicycles for transportation. Microloans are also used to develop day-care centers, health-care clinics, reforestation projects, drinking water supply projects, literacy programs, and small-scale solar- and wind-power systems in rural villages (
Figure 23.15
).
Figure 23.15
A microloan helped these women in a rural village in India to buy a small solar-cell panel (installed on the roof behind them) that provides electricity to help them make a living, thus applying the solar energy principle of sustainability.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
The Grameen Bank’s average repayment rate on its microloans has been 95% or higher. That is nearly twice the average repayment rate for loans by conventional commercial banks—and the Grameen Bank consistently made a profit. Typically, about half of Grameen’s borrowers move above the poverty line within 5 years of receiving their loans.
Since 1975, the Grameen Bank’s innovative approach helped to reduce the poverty rate in Bangladesh from 74% to 40%, primarily because of the hard work of the people receiving the microloans. In addition, birth rates are lower among most of the borrowers, a majority of whom are women, because the loans have given them more freedom and control over their lives.
One of the bank’s goals was to help protect borrowers from loan sharks who were charging high interest rates and bankrupting many people. Unfortunately, some loan sharks and commercial companies have moved into the microfinance sector and turned it to their advantage, which has given microlending a bad name in some areas.
However, Yunus and his supporters point out that microlending, when done properly, can help people escape poverty and improve their lives. In 2006, Yunus and his colleagues at the bank jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize for their pioneering use of microcredit loans that change people’s lives. He has stated, “Unleashing the energy and creativity in each human being is the answer to poverty.” Banks based on the Grameen microcredit model have spread to 58 countries (including the United States) with an estimated 500 million participants.
Ecologist and Geographic Explorer Sasha Kramer has been working in the impoverished and ecologically degraded nation of Haiti to attack the problems of hunger, topsoil depletion, and water pollution all at once. Her nonprofit organization has distributed waterless composting toilets throughout the country to collect human wastes and transform them into compost, which Haitian farmers can use to rebuild depleted soil and boost food production. This process also keeps human wastes out of Haiti’s water supply and reduces the dangerous threat of waterborne infectious diseases.
23.4bMillennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development Goals
In 2000, the world’s nations set goals—called Millennium Development Goals—for sharply reducing hunger and poverty, improving health care, achieving universal primary education, empowering women, and moving toward environmental sustainability by 2015. That year, the United Nations published its Progress Chart showing highly mixed results in reaching the goals. Most countries did well in expanding primary education while women’s representation in national parliaments did not improve in most places. Many countries succeeded in bringing clean drinking water to most of their citizens while some countries did very poorly.
More-developed countries pledged to donate 0.7%—or $7 of every $1,000—of their annual national income to less-developed countries to help them in achieving these goals. So far, Denmark, Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands have donated what they had promised. In fact, the average amount donated in most years has been 0.25% of national income. The United States—the world’s richest country—gives only 0.16% of its national income and Japan, another wealthy country, gives only 0.18% compared with 0.9% given by Sweden. For any country, deciding whether or not to help poorer countries in this way is an ethical issue that requires individuals and nations to evaluate their priorities (
Figure 23.16
).
Figure 23.16
What should our priorities be?
Critical Thinking:
1. Which items on the right side of the figure would you do without or reduce to pay for solving some of the problems listed on the left side of the figure?
(Compiled by the authors using data from United Nations, World Health Organization, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, World Bank, Earth Policy Institute, and Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.)
In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with a target date of 2030. The goals include elimination of poverty and hunger and providing, for all people, good health and well-being, a quality education, gender equality, clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, and decent jobs. The goals also include, for all nations, economic growth, industry innovation and infrastructure, sustainable cities and communities, and peace, justice, and strong institutions. The goals are aimed at encouraging responsible consumption and production, slowing climate change, and protecting ocean life and life on land.
In 2015, the 193 member nations of the United Nations adopted these goals. By 2018, no country was on track to achieve all of the Sustainable Development Goals.
Critical Thinking
1. Which five of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals do you think are the most important? Why?
23.5aLow-Throughput Economies
The three scientific laws governing matter and energy changes (see
Chapter 2
,
Law of Conservation of Matter
and
Energy Changes Obey Two Scientific Laws
) and the six principles of sustainability suggest that the best long-term solution to our environmental and resource problems is to shift away from a high-throughput (high-waste) economies based on ever-increasing matter and energy flow (
Figure 23.4
) over the next few decades. The goal would be to develop more sustainable
low-throughput (low-waste) economies
based on energy efficiency and matter recycling (
Figure 23.17
). Such economies would work with nature to reduce inefficient use and excessive throughputs of matter and energy resources and the resulting pollution and wastes.
Figure 23.17
Solutions: Learning and applying lessons from nature can help us design and manage more sustainable low-throughput economies.
Critical Thinking:
1. What are three ways in which your school could decrease any unsustainable economic and environmental practices, and three ways that it could promote more sustainable economic and environmental practices?
A low-throughput economy works by
1. reusing and recycling most nonrenewable matter resources;
2. using renewable resources no faster than natural processes can replenish them;
3. reducing resource waste by using matter and energy resources more efficiently;
4. reducing environmentally harmful forms of consumption; and
5. promoting pollution prevention and waste reduction.
Some experts would add that such an economy works best when population growth can be slowed so that the number of matter and energy consumers grows slowly, and eventually, not at all.
Some environmental scientists suggest that an important step in shifting to a low-throughput economy is to relocalize economies so that communities can depend more on their local resources. For example, Kelly Cain and his colleagues (
Science Focus 22.1
) have created a computer model for estimating the amount of money and other resources that leave any community that imports most of its food, usually through large retailers. Cain argues that such a community can save large amounts of money and shrink its ecological footprint by learning how to produce much more of its own food and energy from renewable sources such as the sun, wind, and biomass.
One highly successful example of relocalizing an economy, and of Germany’s shift to renewable energy (
Core Case Study
), is the small windswept rural village of Feldheim, south of Berlin, with a population of about 150. There a young energy entrepreneur, interested in relocalizing energy production, invested in a small number of wind turbines. The village followed his lead and built its own power grid, along with a biogas plant that produces natural gas from corncobs, pig manure, and other farm wastes. Today the village produces all of its own heat and electricity and has a zero-carbon footprint and full employment. It makes a profit by selling the excess energy it produces to major power companies for use in Germany’s electrical grid system.
23.5bShifting to More Sustainable Economies
Figure 23.18
shows some of the components of societies that have more sustainable economic systems. A common goal of such systems is to put more emphasis on conserving and sustaining the air, water, soil, biodiversity, and other natural resources and ecosystem services that in turn sustain all life and all economies.
Figure 23.18
Solutions: Some of the components of more environmentally sustainable economic development favored by ecological and environmental economists.
Critical Thinking:
1. What are three new types of jobs that could be generated by such an economy?
Photos going clockwise starting at “No-till cultivation”: Jeff Vanuga/National Resource Conservation Service. Natalia Bratslavsky/ Shutterstock.com. Pi-Lens/ Shutterstock.com. Vladislav Gajic/ Shutterstock.com. hxdbzxy/ Shutterstock.com. Varina C/ Shutterstock.com. Kalmatsuy/ Shutterstock.com. Brenda Carson/ Shutterstock.com. Alexander Chaikin/ Shutterstock.com. Copper Development Corp/National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Anhong/ Dreamstime.com. pedrosala/ Shutterstock.com. Robert Kneschke/ Shutterstock.com.
A shift to more sustainable economies will involve the death of some industries and the birth of others, which is a normal and beneficial effect of what economists call creative capitalism. Recall that ecological succession occurs when changes in environmental conditions enable certain species to move into an area and replace other species that are no longer favored by the changing environmental conditions (
Figure 5.12
and
Figure 5.13
). By analogy, economic succession in a dynamic capitalist economy occurs as new and more innovative businesses replace older ones that can no longer thrive under changing economic conditions.
The drive to improve environmental quality and to work toward environmental sustainability has created new major growth industries along with profits and large numbers of new green jobs (
Figure 23.19
). Examples of such jobs include those devoted to protecting natural capital, expanding organic agriculture, making homes and other buildings more energy efficient, modernizing the electrical grid system, and developing low-carbon renewable energy resources.
Figure 23.19
Green careers: Some key environmental businesses and careers are expected to flourish during this century, while environmentally harmful, or sunset, businesses are expected to decline. See the website for this book for more information on various environmental careers.
Critical Thinking:
1. How could some of these careers help you to apply the three scientific principles of sustainability?
Top: Goodluz/ Shutterstock.com. Second from top: Goodluz/ Shutterstock.com. Second from bottom: Dusit/ Shutterstock.com. Bottom: Corepics VOF/ Shutterstock.com.
Older industries such as the fossil fuels industry have claimed repeatedly that a switch to a more sustainable economy will lead to massive job losses. However, a study by University of California–Berkeley scientists led by Max Wei reviewed 15 studies on job creation in the energy sector. They found that the production and use of renewable energy sources created more jobs per unit of energy generated than did the production and use of fossil fuels.
Making the shift to more sustainable economies will require governments and industries to greatly increase their spending on research and development—especially in the areas of energy efficiency and renewable energy—as Germany has done in recent years (
Core Case Study).
One of the most highly respected leaders in making businesses more sustainable was Ray Anderson (1934–2011), founder of the American company Interface, the world’s largest manufacturer of commercial carpet tiles. In 1994, he announced plans to develop the nation’s first truly sustainable corporation. Within 16 years, Interface had cut water usage by 74%, net greenhouse gas emissions by 32%, solid waste by 63%, fossil fuel use by 60%, and energy use by 44%. These efforts have saved Interface more than $433 million, and the company’s profits tripled. Anderson also created a consulting group as part of Interface to help other businesses start on the path toward becoming more sustainable.
23.5cUsing Lessons from Nature to Make an Economic Transition
In this chapter, we have considered how certain principles of sustainability can guide us in shifting to more sustainable economic systems. This has revealed a sharp contrast between the hypotheses of neoclassical economists and those of ecological economists. We close this chapter with the words of the highly regarded environmental scientist Donella Meadows (1941–2001). In 1996, she contrasted the views of neoclassical and ecological economists as follows:
· The first commandment of economics is: Grow. Grow forever. . . . The first commandment of the earth is: Enough. Just so much and no more. . .
· Economics says: Compete. . . . The earth says: Compete, yes, but keep your competition in bounds. Don’t annihilate. Take only what you need. Leave your competitor enough to live. Wherever possible, don’t compete, cooperate. . . . You’re not in a war, you’re in a community. . . .
· Economics says: Use it up fast. Don’t bother with repair; the sooner something wears out, the sooner you’ll buy another. This makes the gross national product go round. Throw things out when you get tired of them. . . . Get the oil out of the ground and burn it now. . . . The earth says: What’s the hurry? . . . When any part wears out, don’t discard it, turn it into food for something else. . . .
·
Economics discounts the future. … a resource 10 years from now is worth only half of what it’s worth now. Take it now. Turn it into dollars. The earth says: Nonsense. … give to the future. … Never take more in your generation than you give back to the next.
· The economic rule is: Do whatever makes sense in monetary terms. The earth says: Money measures nothing more than the relative power of some humans over other humans, and that power is puny compared with the power of the climate, the oceans, the uncounted multitudes of one-celled organisms that created the atmosphere, that recycle the waste, and that have lasted for 3 billion years. The fact that the economy, which has lasted for maybe 200 years, puts zero values on these things means only that the economy knows nothing about value—or about lasting.
Big Ideas
· Making a transition to more sustainable economies will require finding ways to estimate and include the harmful environmental and health costs of producing goods and services in their market prices.
· Making this economic transition will also mean phasing out environmentally harmful subsidies and tax breaks, and replacing them with environmentally beneficial subsidies and tax breaks.
· Another way to further this transition would be to tax pollution and wastes instead of wages and profits and to use most of the revenues from these taxes to promote environmental sustainability and reduce poverty.
· Tying It All TogetherGermany’s Transition to Renewable Energy and Sustainability
·
· iStock.com/Richard Schmidt-Zuper
· The Core Case Study that opens this chapter is about how Germany has used economic tools to spur a shift from using fossil fuels and nuclear energy to relying increasingly on renewable energy to produce its electricity (Figure 23.1). It shows how a country can use its economic policy tools to affect the energy market. As energy use and environmental quality in a country or region are closely intertwined, this story also shows how economics can be used directly to reduce a country’s environmental impact—how economics can play a major role in determining the size of a country’s ecological footprint.
· This story and others in this chapter show how several of the principles of sustainability can be applied to help us shift to more sustainable economies in the near future. The full-cost pricing principle will play a major role in such a shift, because if consumers have to pay the harmful environmental and health costs of the goods and services they use, they will be inclined to choose those that have lower costs and thus lower impacts on the environment and human health. Germany is finding that renewable energy resources—the sun, wind, biogas, and other resources—have lower environmental and health costs, and the country is thus applying the solar energy principle of sustainability. In addition, several companies are developing products and services based more on reuse and recycling, in accordance with the chemical cycling principle of sustainability.
· Think about the other three principles of sustainability related to economics, politics, and ethics (
Figure 1.7
) and see if you can find ways in which Germany and other subjects of stories in this chapter are applying those principles as they take part in a historic effort to shift to dependence on renewable energy as a part of a more sustainable economy.
Critical Thinking
· Explain how Germany’s transition to increased use of renewable energy to produce much of its electricity (Core Case Study) shows that the economy and the environment are linked. What are some ways in which Germany’s example could be applied to improve the environment and the economy where you live?
· Is it a good idea to maximize economic growth by producing and consuming more and more economic goods and services? Why or why not? What are some alternatives?
· According to one definition, environmentally sustainable economic development involves meeting the needs of the present human generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. What do you believe are the needs referred to in this definition? Compare this definition with the characteristics of a low-throughput economy depicted in Figure 23.17.
· Is environmental regulation bad for the economy? Explain. Assume you are a government official and devise an incentive-based regulation for an industry of your choice. (It could be a coal mine, a power plant, a fishing fleet, a chemical plant, or any other business that has a large effect on the environment.) Explain how your regulatory plan will benefit both the industry and the environment.
· Suppose that over the next 20 years, the environmental and health costs of goods and services are gradually added to market prices until their market prices more closely reflect their full costs. What harmful effects and what beneficial effects might such a full-cost pricing process have on your lifestyle and on the lives of any children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren you might eventually have?
·
Do you believe that reducing poverty should be a major environmental goal? Explain. List three ways in which reducing poverty could benefit you and any children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren you might eventually have. Why do you think the world has not focused more intense efforts on reducing poverty?
· Do you think we should shift to an economy based on the idea of leasing certain services instead of buying the products that provide the services? Explain. If you are for such a shift, what do you think is the best strategy for making it happen? If you are opposed, what are your main objections to the idea?
· Congratulations! You are in charge of the world. Write up a 5- to 10-point strategy for shifting the world to more environmentally sustainable economic systems over the next 50 years.
Doing Environmental Science
Go online and find a tool for estimating the full cost (including harmful environmental and health costs) of common products. Choose five products that you regularly buy and use this tool to estimate the full cost of each. Record these data in a table, along with the price you paid for each product. (Estimate this price if you don’t remember what you paid.) Now do some market research and try to find alternatives to these products that have lower full costs. Record these data in your table. Do some calculations to learn
· the differences between the prices you paid for your common products and their full costs;
· for each product, the difference between its price and the price of the alternative substitute you found; and
· for each product, the difference between its full cost and the full cost of the alternative substitute you found.
Finally, for each product pair, use your data to answer these questions:
· Without knowledge of the full costs, would the price differences be large enough to keep you from buying the alternative product and sticking with your commonly used product? Explain.
· Comparing their full costs, does this change your mind about whether the price difference is high enough to keep you from switching products? Explain.
· How high would the full cost of your commonly used product have to be to get you to pay the higher price for the alternative?
· Doing Environmental Science
· Go online and find a tool for estimating the full cost (including harmful environmental and health costs) of common products. Choose five products that you regularly buy and use this tool to estimate the full cost of each. Record these data in a table, along with the price you paid for each product. (Estimate this price if you don’t remember what you paid.) Now do some market research and try to find alternatives to these products that have lower full costs. Record these data in your table. Do some calculations to learn
· the differences between the prices you paid for your common products and their full costs;
· for each product, the difference between its price and the price of the alternative substitute you found; and
· for each product, the difference between its full cost and the full cost of the alternative substitute you found.
· Finally, for each product pair, use your data to answer these questions:
· Without knowledge of the full costs, would the price differences be large enough to keep you from buying the alternative product and sticking with your commonly used product? Explain.
· Comparing their full costs, does this change your mind about whether the price difference is high enough to keep you from switching products? Explain.
· How high would the full cost of your commonly used product have to be to get you to pay the higher price for the alternative?
·
Chap23
·
23.1
Economic Systems and the Biosphere
·
23.1a
Economic Systems Depend on Natural Capital
·
23.1b
Government Intervention Helps Correct Market Failures
·
23.1c
Models of Economies
·
23.2
Economic Value of Natural Capital and Pollution Control
·
23.2a
Valuing Natural Capital
·
23.2b
Estimating the Future Value of a Resource
·
23.2c
Optimum Levels of Pollution C
ontrol and Resource Use
·
23.2d
Cost
–
Benefit Analysis
·
23.3
Using Economics to Deal With Environmental Problems
·
23.3a
Full
–
Cost Pricing
·
23.3b
E
nvironmentally Beneficial Subsidies
·
23.3c
Environmental Indicators
·
23.3d
Taxing Pollution and Wastes Instead of Wages and Profits
·
23.3e
Using Cap
–
and
–
Trade to Reduce Pol
lution and Resource Waste
·
23.3f
Labeling Environmentally Beneficial Goods and Services
·
23.3g
Environmental Laws and Regulations
·
23.3h
Selling Services Instead of Products
·
23.4
Poverty and Environmental Problems
·
23.4a
Reducing Poverty
·
23.4b
Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development Goals
·
23.5
Environmentally Sustainable Economies
·
23.5a
Low
–
Throughput Economies
·
23.5b
Shifting to More Sustainable Economies
·
23.5c
Using Lessons f
rom Nature to Make an Economic Transition
·
Tying It All Together
Germany’s Transition to Renewable Energy and Sustainability
·
Chapter Review
·
Critical Thinking
·
Doing Environmental Science
Chap23
23.1Economic Systems and the Biosphere
23.1aEconomic Systems Depend on Natural Capital
23.1bGovernment Intervention Helps Correct Market Failures
23.1cModels of Economies
23.2Economic Value of Natural Capital and Pollution Control
23.2aValuing Natural Capital
23.2bEstimating the Future Value of a Resource
23.2cOptimum Levels of Pollution Control and Resource Use
23.2dCost–Benefit Analysis
23.3Using Economics to Deal With Environmental Problems
23.3aFull-Cost Pricing
23.3bEnvironmentally Beneficial Subsidies
23.3cEnvironmental Indicators
23.3dTaxing Pollution and Wastes Instead of Wages and Profits
23.3eUsing Cap-and-Trade to Reduce Pollution and Resource Waste
23.3fLabeling Environmentally Beneficial Goods and Services
23.3gEnvironmental Laws and Regulations
23.3hSelling Services Instead of Products
23.4Poverty and Environmental Problems
23.4aReducing Poverty
23.4bMillennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development Goals
23.5Environmentally Sustainable Economies
23.5aLow-Throughput Economies
23.5bShifting to More Sustainable Economies
23.5cUsing Lessons from Nature to Make an Economic Transition
Tying It All TogetherGermany’s Transition to Renewable Energy and Sustainability
Chapter Review
Critical Thinking
Doing Environmental Science
C
hap2
4
·
·
Campuses
·
24.1
Government Role in a Transition to Sustainable Societies
·
24.1a
Envir
onmental Laws and Regulations
·
24.1b
The Democratic
Process
·
24.1c
Environmental Justice
·
24.1d
Envir
onmental Pol
icy
Principles
·
24.2
Environmental Policy
·
24.2a
Democratic Government: The U.S. Model
·
24.2b
Developing Environmental Policy
—
a Complex and Controversial
Process
·
24.2c
Influencing Environmental Pol
icy
·
24.2d
Environmental Leadership
·
24.3
Environmental Laws
·
24.3a
Environmental Law and Lawsuits
·
24.3b
U.S. Environmental Laws
·
24.3c
Attempts to Weaken U.S. Environmental Laws
·
24.4
Environmental Groups
·
24.4a
Roles of Environmental Groups
·
24.4b
Grassroots Environmental Groups
·
24.4c
Student Environmental Groups
·
24.5
Environmental Security
·
24.5a
Global Environmental Security
·
24.5b
International Environmental Policies
·
24.5c
Role of Corporations in Promoting Environmental Sustainability
·
24.6
Sustainable and Just Environmental Policies
·
24.6a
Green Planning
·
24.6b
Shifting to More Environmentally Sustainable Societies
·
Tying It All Together
Greening College Campuses and Sustainability
·
Chapter Review
·
Critical Thinking
·
Doing Environmental Science
·
Data Analysis
24.1aEnvironmental Laws and Regulations
Business and industry thrive on change and innovations that lead to new technologies, products, and opportunities for profits. This process, often referred to as free enterprise, can lead to jobs and higher living standards for many people, but it can also create harmful health and environmental impacts.
Government can act as a brake on environmentally harmful business enterprises. Achieving the right balance between free enterprise and government regulation is not easy. Too much government intervention can strangle enterprise and innovation. Too little government oversight can lead to environmental degradation and social injustices, and even to a weakening of the government by business interests and global trade policies.
Analysts point out that in today’s global economy, some multinational corporations, which often have budgets larger than the budgets of many countries, have greatly increased their economic and political power over national, state, and local governments, and ordinary citizens. However, businesses can also serve environmental and public interests. Green businesses create products and services that help to sustain or improve environmental quality while improving people’s lives. They make up one of the world’s fastest growing business sectors and are increasingly a source of new jobs.
Many argue that government is the best mechanism for dealing with some of the broader economic and political issues we face, some of which we have discussed in this book. These include the following:
·
Full-cost pricing (see
Chapter 2
3
): Governments can provide subsidies and levy taxes that have the effect of including harmful environmental and health costs in the market prices of some goods and services, in keeping with the full-cost pricing principle of sustainability.
· Market failures (see
Chapter 23
): Governments can use taxes and subsidies to level the playing field when the marketplace is not operating freely due to unfair advantages held by some players.
· The tragedy of the commons: Government plays a key role in preserving common or open-access renewable resources (see
Chapter 1
) such as clean air and groundwater, the ozone layer in the stratosphere, and our life-support system.
The roles played by a government are determined by its
policies
—the laws and regulations it enacts and enforces, and the programs it funds.
Politics
is the process by which individuals and groups try to influence or control the policies and actions of governments at local, state, national, and international levels.
One important application of this process is the development of
environmental policy
—environmental laws, regulations, and programs that are designed, implemented, and enforced by government agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Energy (DOE), Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Forest Service (USFS), Geological Survey (USGS), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Such agencies enforce laws that set pollution standards, regulate the release of toxic chemicals into the environment, and protect environmental resources such as public forests, parks, and wilderness areas from unsustainable use.
The development of public policy in democracies often goes through a policy life cycle (also known as adaptive management) consisting of four stages (
Figure 24.2
):
· Problem recognition. A problem is identified by members of the public or by policy makers.
· Policy formulation. A cause or causes of the problem are identified and a solution such as a law or program to help deal with the problem is proposed and developed.
· Policy implementation. A law is passed or a regulation written to put the policy into effect.
· Policy adjustment. The policy and program are monitored, evaluated, and adjusted as necessary.
Figure 24.2
The policy life cycle has been defined in several ways but generally includes these four phases (listed in the orange boxes).
24.1aEnvironmental Laws and Regulations
Business and industry thrive on change and innovations that lead to new technologies, products, and opportunities for profits. This process, often referred to as free enterprise, can lead to jobs and higher living standards for many people, but it can also create harmful health and environmental impacts.
Government can act as a brake on environmentally harmful business enterprises. Achieving the right balance between free enterprise and government regulation is not easy. Too much government intervention can strangle enterprise and innovation. Too little government oversight can lead to environmental degradation and social injustices, and even to a weakening of the government by business interests and global trade policies.
Analysts point out that in today’s global economy, some multinational corporations, which often have budgets larger than the budgets of many countries, have greatly increased their economic and political power over national, state, and local governments, and ordinary citizens. However, businesses can also serve environmental and public interests. Green businesses create products and services that help to sustain or improve environmental quality while improving people’s lives. They make up one of the world’s fastest growing business sectors and are increasingly a source of new jobs.
Many argue that government is the best mechanism for dealing with some of the broader economic and political issues we face, some of which we have discussed in this book. These include the following:
·
Full-cost pricing (see
Chapter 23
): Governments can provide subsidies and levy taxes that have the effect of including harmful environmental and health costs in the market prices of some goods and services, in keeping with the full-cost pricing principle of sustainability.
· Market failures (see
Chapter 23
): Governments can use taxes and subsidies to level the playing field when the marketplace is not operating freely due to unfair advantages held by some players.
· The tragedy of the commons: Government plays a key role in preserving common or open-access renewable resources (see
Chapter 1
) such as clean air and groundwater, the ozone layer in the stratosphere, and our life-support system.
The roles played by a government are determined by its
policies
—the laws and regulations it enacts and enforces, and the programs it funds.
Politics
is the process by which individuals and groups try to influence or control the policies and actions of governments at local, state, national, and international levels.
One important application of this process is the development of
environmental policy
—environmental laws, regulations, and programs that are designed, implemented, and enforced by government agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Energy (DOE), Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Forest Service (USFS), Geological Survey (USGS), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Such agencies enforce laws that set pollution standards, regulate the release of toxic chemicals into the environment, and protect environmental resources such as public forests, parks, and wilderness areas from unsustainable use.
The development of public policy in democracies often goes through a policy life cycle (also known as adaptive management) consisting of four stages (
Figure 24.2
):
· Problem recognition. A problem is identified by members of the public or by policy makers.
· Policy formulation. A cause or causes of the problem are identified and a solution such as a law or program to help deal with the problem is proposed and developed.
· Policy implementation. A law is passed or a regulation written to put the policy into effect.
· Policy adjustment. The policy and program are monitored, evaluated, and adjusted as necessary.
Figure 24.2
The policy life cycle has been defined in several ways but generally includes these four phases (listed in the orange boxes).
24.1cEnvironmental Justice
Environmental justice
is an ideal whereby every person is entitled to protection from environmental hazards regardless of race, gender, age, national origin, income, social class, or any political factor.
Studies show that a large share of polluting factories, hazardous waste dumps, incinerators, and landfills in the United States are located in communities populated mostly by minorities. Other research shows that, in general, toxic waste sites in white communities are cleaned up faster and more completely than similar sites in communities populated by African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. In addition, people in minority communities tend to have higher exposures to lead-based paint, diesel fumes and other dangerous pollutants (
Figure 24.3
), bothersome odors, and noise from factories, landfills, and other sources.
Figure 24.3
These residents of a neighborhood in Detroit, Michigan (USA), wanted a nearby hospital to shut down its medical waste incinerator, which was polluting the air in their community.
Jim West/Age Fotostock
Such environmental discrimination in the United States and in many other parts of the world has led to a growing effort known as the environmental justice movement. Supporters of this movement pressure governments, businesses, and environmental organizations to become aware of environmental injustice and to act to prevent it. This movement has made some progress toward their goals despite strong opposition.
However, the term “environmental justice” does not appear in any of the environmental laws passed by the U.S. Congress in the 1970s and 1980s. There is also no mention of environmental justice in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Some members of the U.S. Congress have proposed environmental justice bills or amendments to existing laws, but as of 2019, Congress had not acted on any such proposals. The main barriers to such legislation are opposition from wealthy individuals and corporations and the lack of economic and political power among low-income people affected by environmental injustices. A Center for Public Integrity study found that since the mid-1990s, the EPA has dismissed 95% of all environmental justice claims.
Some politicians and business representatives suggest that economics should be the main factor in decisions about where to locate new power plants, freeways, landfills, incinerators, and other such potentially disruptive facilities. Often, however, these areas are home to low-income residents who have much less political power than developers and corporations have (see
Individuals Matter 22.1
). Many analysts argue that an ethical principle of environmental justice should carry as much weight as economic factors do in such decisions.
Critical Thinking
1. Do you think that the principles of environmental justice should get equal weight, more weight, or less weight than economic factors in political decisions about where to locate potentially environmentally harmful facilities? Explain.
24.1dEnvironmental Policy Principles
Environmental scientists, economists, and political scientists have proposed several principles designed to reduce environmental harm and help legislators and individuals in evaluating existing or proposed environmental policies:
· Reversibility principle: Avoid making decisions that cannot be reversed if they turn out to be harmful. Two essentially irreversible actions are the production of toxic coal ash in coal-burning power plants and the production of highly radioactive wastes in nuclear power plants. In both cases, the resulting hazardous wastes must be stored safely for thousands of years.
· Precautionary principle: When substantial evidence indicates that an activity threatens human health or the environment, take measures to prevent or reduce such harm, even if some of the evidence is not conclusive.
· Prevention principle: Make decisions that prevent environmental problems from occurring or becoming worse.
· Net energy principle: Prohibit or limit widespread use of energy resources and technologies with low or negative net energy yields (
Figure 15.3
) that need government subsidies and tax breaks to compete in the marketplace. Examples of such energy alternatives include nuclear power (considering the whole fuel cycle), tar sands, shale oil, ethanol made from corn, and hydrogen fuel, as discussed in
Chapter 16
.
· Polluter-pays principle: Develop regulations and use economic tools, such as green taxes, to ensure that polluters bear the costs of dealing with the pollutants and wastes they produce. This stimulates the development of innovative ways to reduce and prevent pollution and wastes.
· Environmental justice principle: No group of people should bear an unfair share of the burden created by pollution, environmental degradation, or the execution of environmental laws.
· Holistic principle: Focus on long-term solutions that address root causes of interconnected problems instead of on short-term and often ineffective fixes that treat each problem separately.
· Triple bottom line principle: Balance economic, environmental, and social needs when making policy decisions (
Figure 24.4
).
Figure 24.4
The triple bottom line: Policy makers traditionally make their decisions by considering the social, environmental, and economic factors in isolation from one another (represented by the three circles, left). Some analysts say sustainable policy decisions must be made by weighing all of these factors at once and attempting to satisfy the needs of all three sets of priorities (represented by the intersection of these three circles, right).
Implementing such principles is not easy. It requires policy makers throughout the world to become more environmentally literate. It also requires robust debate among politicians and citizens, mutual respect for diverse beliefs, and a dedication to dealing with environmental problems by implementing the win-win principle of sustainability.
Critical Thinking
1. Which three of these eight principles do you think are the most important? Why? Which ones do you think could influence legislators in your city, state, or country? Why?
2. 24.2aDemocratic Government: The U.S. Model
3. The U.S. federal government consists of three separate but interconnected branches: legislative, executive, and judicial (
Figure 24.5
). The legislative branch, called the Congress, consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate, which jointly have two main duties. One is to approve and oversee government policy by passing laws that establish government agencies or instruct existing agencies to take on new tasks or programs. The other is to oversee the functioning and funding of agencies in the executive branch concerned with carrying out government policies.
4. Figure 24.5
5. Simplified overview of how individuals, companies, and environmental organizations interact with each other and with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the U.S. government in the making of environmental policy.
6.
7.
8.
Ryan Rodrick Beiler/ Shutterstock.com, MDOGAN/ Shutterstock.com, Orhan Cam/ Shutterstock.com, Andrey Burmakin/ Shutterstock.com, jgroup/Getty Images, Cameron Whitman/ Shutterstock.com, Kevin Grant/ Shutterstock.com, jl661227/ Shutterstock.com, Tyler Olson/ Shutterstock.com
9.
The executive branch consists of the president, vice president, major department heads (called the President’s Cabinet), and a staff who oversee the many agencies of the executive branch, which are authorized by Congress to carry out government policies. The president proposes annual budgets, legislation, and appointees for major executive positions, which must be approved by Congress. The president also tries to persuade Congress and the public to support executive policy proposals. Citizens vote to elect the president, vice president, and members of Congress.
10. The judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. These courts, along with state and local courts, enforce and interpret different laws passed by legislative bodies. They are to ensure that the laws preserve the rights and responsibilities of government and citizens as established by the U.S. Constitution. The president appoints judges at the federal level with the advice and consent of the Senate.
11. The major function of the federal government in the United States (and in other democratic countries) is to develop and implement policies for dealing with various issues. The important components of policy are the laws passed by the legislative branch, regulations instituted by the agencies of the executive branch to put laws and programs into effect, and funding approved by Congress and the president to finance the executive agencies’ programs and to implement and enforce the laws and regulations.
12. Developing and implementing policy is a complex process (
Figure 24.5). An important factor in this process is
lobbying
, in which individuals or groups contact legislators in person, or hire lobbyists (representatives) to do so, in order to persuade legislators to vote or act in their favor. Lobbying elected representatives is an important right in a democracy. However, some critics believe that lobbyists of large corporations and other organizations have grown too powerful and that their influence overshadows the input of ordinary citizens.
13. $8,200
14. Amount spent per day on each member of Congress by lobbyists in 2018
15. Connections
16. Lobbying and Perverse Subsidies
17. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 2018 there were nearly 12,553 registered corporate lobbyists in Washington, D.C. They spent $1.6 billion—an average of $4.4 million per day—on efforts to influence the 535 members of the U.S. Congress. That amounts to an average of about $8,200 per day per member.
18. Corporations, trade unions, and other large organizations also provide billions of dollars in political campaign contributions. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend as much money as they want on ads for or against specific candidates running for election.
Most environmental bills are evaluated by as many as 10 committees in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. Effective proposals often are weakened by this fragmentation and by lobbying from groups opposing these laws. Nonetheless, since the 1970s, a number of important environmental laws have been passed in the United States, as we discuss in the next section of this chapter. 24.2bDeveloping Environmental Policy—a Complex and Controversial Process
In the United States, passing a law is not enough to make policy. The next step involves trying to get Congress to appropriate enough funds to implement and enforce each law. The government creates a budget to finance its agencies and programs and the enforcement of laws and regulations. Budgeting is the most important and controversial activity of the executive and legislative branches.
Once Congress has passed a law and funded a program, the appropriate government department or agency must draw up regulations for implementing it. A group affected by the program and its regulations may take the agency to court for failing to implement and enforce the regulations effectively or for enforcing them too rigidly.
Businesses facing environmental regulations often pressure regulatory agencies and executives to appoint people from the regulated industries or groups to high positions within the agencies. In other words, the regulated try to take over the regulatory agencies and become the regulators—described by some as “putting foxes in charge of the henhouse.”
In addition, people in regulatory agencies work closely with officials in the industries they are regulating, often developing friendships with them. Some industries and other regulated groups offer high-paying jobs to regulatory agency employees in an attempt to influence their regulatory decisions. The tendency for administrators to move back and forth between agencies and the companies they regulate has been referred to as a “revolving door effect” that can give regulated companies an unfair advantage in the political process.
Some analysts argue that environmental science should play a major role in the formulation of environmental policy. However, politics usually plays a bigger role, and the scientific and political processes are quite different (
Science Focus 24.1
).
Science Focus 24.1
Science and Politics—Principles and Procedures
The rules of inquiry and debate in science are quite different from those of politics. Science is based on a set of principles designed to make scientific investigations open to critical review and testing. Here are four of the basic principles:
1. Any scientific claim must be based on hard evidence and subject to peer review. This helps prevent scientists from lying about procedures or falsifying evidence.
2. Scientists can never establish absolute proof about anything. Instead, they seek to establish a high degree of certainty (such as 90% to 95%) about the results of their research.
3. Scientists vigorously debate the validity of scientific research. Such debate focuses on the scientific evidence and results, not on personalities involved.
4. Science advances through the open sharing and peer review of research methods, results, and conclusions. There are two exceptions to this: first, some scientists who own or work for companies need to protect their research until legal patents can be obtained. Second, government scientists whose work involves national security often keep their research secret.
In politics, there are no such established and respected principles. In order to win elections and gain influence, politicians use unwritten rules that change frequently. While many politicians would like to base their decisions and actions on facts, others suggest that what matters more than facts is how the public perceives what they do and say. This makes the political process far less open than the scientific process is to review and criticism.
Without such openness, the political process often involves tactics that scientists would reject. For example, some politicians choose facts to support a claim that is not supported by the whole of a body of evidence. They then repeat such a doubtful claim until it becomes part of the news media cycle. If this misuse of evidence is not exposed, as it usually is in science, these unsupported claims can become widely accepted as truth.
Another political tactic that often goes unchallenged is to change a debate about facts to a discussion focused on personal attacks. Such a tactic is meant to make one’s opponents look weak, and it helps a politician avoid serious discussion of issues. In scientific debate, most participants do not tolerate such a shift away from a fact-based discussion.
It is possible to spread disinformation quickly in this media age of almost instant global news coverage, text messaging, social networking, and internet blogs and videos. While the internet enables this, it also allows almost anyone to check the validity of much information and to detect and publicize lies and distortions. Learning how to detect and evaluate disinformation is one of the most important purposes of education.
Critical Thinking
1. What are two examples of widely accepted results of scientific research that have been politicized to the point where they are largely doubted or ignored by the public?
24.2cInfluencing Environmental Policy
A major theme of this book is that individuals matter. History shows that significant political change usually comes from the bottom up when individuals work together to bring about change. Without this grassroots pressure from individual citizens and organized citizen groups, pollution and environmental degradation would be much worse today.
With the growth of the internet, digital technology, and social media, individuals have become more empowered. Partly because of this social networking, the number of citizens’ groups, national and global action networks, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) focused on environmental problems has grown rapidly.
Figure 24.6
lists ways in which individuals living in democracies can influence and change government policies.
Figure 24.6
Individuals matter: Some ways in which you can influence environmental policy,
Critical Thinking:
1. Which three of these actions do you think are the most important? Which ones, if any, do you take?
At a fundamental level, all politics is local. What we do to improve environmental quality in our own neighborhoods, schools, and work places can serve as an example and have national and global implications. When people work together, starting at the local level, they can influence environmental policy at all levels.
19. 24.2dEnvironmental Leadership
20. You can provide environmental leadership in several different ways. First, you can lead by example, using our own lifestyle and values to show others that beneficial environmental change is possible (
Individuals Matter 24.1
). You can buy only what you need, use fewer disposable products, eat sustainably produced food, practice the 4Rs of resource use (refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle), adjust your lifestyle to reduce your carbon footprint, and walk, bike, or take mass transit to work and school (
Figure 24.7
).
21. Individuals Matter 24.1
22. Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez
23.
24. Mark Sagliocco/Getty Images Entertainment/Getty Images
25. Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez, born in 2000, learned about environmentalism from his parents while spending much of his early childhood enjoying the beautiful forests and streams near his Boulder, Colorado, home. His father is an Aztec who believes that all life is sacred and should be respected and cared for. His mother co-founded the nonprofit Earth Guardians as part of her commitment to protecting the earth’s water, air, and atmosphere. They taught Xiuhtezcatl (pronounced “Shu-TEZ-Cot”) their values, and he fell in love with nature.
26. As a young child, Xiuhtezcatl heard a lot about the harmful effects of human activities and noticed that the forest around him was changing. Trees were dying—killed by beetles whose populations were exploding because winter temperatures did not get low enough to kill them off. Dead trees fueled large fires that destroyed more trees.
27. To Xiuhtezcatl, these effects of climate change were real and scary, and they motivated him. At age 6, he gave his first speech at a climate change rally. Since then, he has used his natural leadership ability to become a dynamic and highly effective environmental activist. He helped persuade the Boulder City Council to stop using pesticides in parks, impose a fee on plastic bag use, and require a power company to depend more on renewable energy. He organized and spoke at press conferences, created a multimedia presentation about the harmful environmental effects of plastic bags, spoke at city council meetings and before an EPA hearing, and went door-to-door to organize dozens of rallies and marches. At age 12, he was invited to speak about climate change at the 2012 Rio+20 United Nations Summit on sustainable development in Brazil.
28. As youth leader for Earth Guardians, Xiuhtezcatl has set up Earth Guardian Crews in many parts of the world to promote environmental education and awareness and to encourage other people to act. Young Earth Guardians have planted thousands of trees in Boulder, Colorado, in many other parts of the United States, and in over 20 other countries.
29. Figure 24.7
30. Bicycling to school or work is one way to lead by example. In addition to reducing pollution, it saves you money and provides exercise.
31.
32. iStock.com/Bryan Hoybook
33.
Second, you can work within existing economic and political systems to bring about environmental improvement by campaigning and voting for informed and ecologically literate candidates and by communicating with elected officials. As environmental writer and activist Bill McKibben says, “First change your politicians, then worry about your light bulbs.” You can also send a message to companies that you think are harming the environment. Another way to do this is to vote with your wallet. Refuse to buy environmentally harmful products or services, and let their providers know why. In addition, you can work to improve environmental quality by choosing one of the many rapidly growing green careers highlighted throughout this book and listed in
Figure 23.19
and on this book’s companion website.
34. Third, you can run for some sort of local office. Look in the mirror. Maybe you are someone who can make a difference as an officeholder.
35. Fourth, you can propose and work for better solutions to environmental problems. Leadership is much more than just taking a stand for or against something. It also involves coming up with solutions to problems and persuading people to work together to achieve them. This includes finding ways to bridge gaps between people who disagree about solutions.
36.
Fifth, good leaders inspire others to lead. Leadership is more than telling others what to do. It involves recognizing each person’s strengths, helping people to recognize their own strengths, and encouraging them to use their strengths creatively and actively.
37. Some environmentally active citizens and leaders are motivated by two important findings: First, research by social scientists indicates that social change requires active support by only 5–10% of the population, which often is enough to lead to a political tipping point. Second, experience has shown that reaching such a critical mass of actively involved people can bring about social change much faster than most people think.
38. 24.3aEnvironmental Law and Lawsuits
3
9.
Environmental law
is a body of laws and treaties that broadly define what acceptable environmental behavior is for individuals, groups, businesses, and nations. This section of the chapter deals primarily with the U.S. legal system as a model that reveals the advantages and disadvantages of using a legal and regulatory approach to dealing with environmental problems.
40. Most environmental lawsuits are
civil suits
brought to settle disputes or damages between one party and another. For example, a homeowner may bring a nuisance suit against a nearby factory because of the noise it generates. In such a suit, the
plaintiff
, the party bringing the charge (in this case, the homeowner), seeks to collect damages from the
defendant
, the party being charged (in this case, the factory), for injuries to health or for economic loss.
41. The plaintiff may also seek an injunction, by which the court hearing the case would order the defendant to stop whatever action is causing the nuisance. Short of closing the factory, often the court tries to find a reasonable or balanced solution to the problem. For example, it may order the factory to reduce the bothersome noise to certain levels or to eliminate it at night.
42. A class action suit is a civil suit filed by a group, often a public interest, consumer, or environmental group, on behalf of a larger number of citizens, all of whom claim to have experienced similar damages from a product or an action, but who need not be listed and represented individually.
43. Another concept used in environmental law cases is negligence, in which a party causes damage by deliberately acting in an unlawful or unreasonable manner. For example, a company may be found negligent if it fails to handle hazardous waste in a way that it knows is required by a statutory law (a law, or statute, passed by a legislature). A court may also find a company negligent if it fails to do something a reasonable person would do, such as testing waste for certain harmful chemicals before dumping it into a sewer, landfill, or river (
Figure 24.8
). Generally, negligence is hard to prove.
44. Figure 24.8
45. This body of water was polluted by a copper mining operation. Such pollution can form the basis for an environmental lawsuit.
46.
47.
48.
Mikadun/ Shutterstock.com
49. Several factors can limit the effectiveness of environmental lawsuits. First, plaintiffs bringing the suit must establish that they have the legal right, or legal standing, to do so in a particular court. To have such a right, plaintiffs must show that they have suffered health or financial losses from some alleged environmental harm. Second, bringing any lawsuit costs too much for most individuals.
50. Third, public interest law firms cannot recover their attorneys’ fees unless Congress has specifically authorized that they be compensated within the laws that they seek to have enforced. By contrast, corporations can reduce their taxes by deducting their legal expenses—in effect getting a government (taxpayer) subsidy to pay for part of their legal fees. In other words, the legal playing field is uneven and puts individuals and groups that are filing environmental lawsuits at a disadvantage.
51. Fourth, to stop a nuisance or to collect damages from a nuisance or an act of negligence, plaintiffs must establish that they have been harmed in some significant way and that the defendant caused the harm. Doing this can be difficult and costly. Suppose a company (the defendant) is alleged to have caused cancer in certain individuals (the plaintiffs) by polluting a river (
Figure 24.8). If hundreds of other industries and cities dump waste into that river, establishing that one specific company is the culprit is very difficult and requires expensive investigation, scientific research, and expert testimony.
52.
Fifth, most states have statutes of limitations, laws that limit how long a plaintiff can take to sue after a particular event occurs. These statutes often make it essentially impossible for victims of cancer, which may take 10–20 years to develop, to file or win a negligence suit.
53. Sixth, courts can take years to reach a decision. During that time, a defendant may continue the allegedly damaging action unless the court issues a temporary injunction against it until the case is decided.
54. Another problem is that corporations and developers sometimes file strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) targeting citizens who publicly criticize a business for some activity, such as polluting or filling in a wetland. Judges throw out about 90% of the SLAPPs that go to court. However, individuals and groups hit with SLAPPs must hire lawyers, and typically spend 1 to 3 years defending themselves. Most SLAPPs are not meant to be won, but are intended to intimidate and discourage individuals and activist groups.
24.3bU.S. Environmental Laws
During the 1950s and 1960s, the United States experienced severe pollution and environmental degradation as its economy grew rapidly without pollution control laws and regulations. This changed in the late 1960s and in the 1970s when massive protests by citizens led the U.S. Congress to pass a number of major environmental laws (
Figure 24.9
). Most of them were enacted in the 1970s, known as the decade of the environment in the United States. Implementing these laws has provided millions of jobs and profits from many new technologies for reducing pollution and environmental degradation. This has also improved the health of U.S. citizens.
Figure 24.9
Some of the major environmental laws and their amended versions enacted in the United States since 1969.
U.S. environmental laws generally fit into five categories. The first type requires evaluation of the environmental impacts of certain human activities. It is represented by one of the first and most far-reaching federal environmental laws, the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, passed in 1970. Under NEPA, an environmental impact statement (EIS) must be developed for every major federal project likely to have an effect on environmental quality. The EIS (
Figure 24.10
) must explain why a proposed project is needed, identify its beneficial and harmful environmental impacts, suggest ways to lessen any harmful impacts, and present an evaluation of alternatives to the project.
Figure 24.10
The environmental impact statement, required by NEPA, is aimed at minimizing the environmental impacts of major projects. It requires input from several different areas of study covering various possible effects on the environment, including but not limited to areas shown here.
NEPA does not prohibit environmentally harmful government projects. However, more than one-third of the country’s land is under federal management, and NEPA requires the managing agencies to consider environmental consequences in making decisions. It also exposes proposed projects and their possible harmful effects to public scrutiny. Opponents have targeted NEPA as a law to weaken or repeal.
In 2018, NEPA had been in effect for 40 years. In that time, it has helped the EPA to sharply reduce atmospheric levels of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, ban the use of leaded gasoline, ban the widespread use of toxic DDT, get secondhand tobacco smoke classified as a carcinogen, and regulate the use of many other toxic chemicals. Instead of hindering economic growth, as its critics feared, NEPA sparked a domestic environmental protection industry that now employs more than 1.5 million people.
Critical Thinking
1. Do you think environmental impact statements such as those required by NEPA are a good idea? Why or why not?
The second major type of environmental legislation sets standards for pollution levels (as in the Clean Air Acts, see
Chapter 18
). A third type sets aside or protects certain species, resources, and ecosystems (the Endangered Species Act, see
Chapter 9
and the Wilderness Act, see
Chapter 10
). A fourth type screens new substances for safety and sets standards (as in the Safe Drinking Water Act, see
Chapter 20
). A fifth type encourages resource conservation (the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, see
Chapter 21
).
24.3cAttempts to Weaken U.S. Environmental Laws
Most U.S. environmental laws use a “command and control approach.” This involves
1. legally enforceable regulations issued by the EPA for U.S. states,
2. compliance by states, municipalities, industries, and other entities, and
3. penalties for noncompliance with the regulations.
However, since 1980 a well-organized and well-funded anti-environmental movement has mounted a strong campaign to weaken or repeal U.S. environmental laws and regulations and do away with the EPA. Three major groups strongly opposed to environmental laws and regulations are:
· Corporate leaders and other powerful people who see laws and regulations as threats to their profits, wealth, and power.
· Citizens who view environmental laws as threatening to their private property rights and jobs.
· State and local government officials who resent having to implement state and federal laws and regulations with little or no federal funding, or who disagree with specific regulations.
As part of this movement, one group developed a list of goals for what it called “wise use” of resources. Among those proposed goals were eliminating restrictions on wetland development; cutting older forests on national forest land and replacing them with tree plantations; opening all public lands, including wilderness areas, to mineral and energy development; and fining or penalizing anyone who challenges economic development on federal land.
Another problem working against additional environmental laws and regulations is that the focus of environmental issues has shifted away from easy-to-see dirty smokestacks and filthy rivers to complex, long-term, and less visible environmental problems. These include biodiversity loss, groundwater pollution, and climate change.
Since 2000, and especially since 2017, efforts to weaken environmental laws and regulations have escalated (see
Case Study
that follows). Nevertheless, independent polls show that more than 80% of the U.S. public strongly supports environmental laws and regulations and do not want them weakened. However, polls also show that less than 10% of the U.S. public (and in hard economic times only about 2–3%) considers the environment to be one of the nation’s most pressing problems. As a result, environmental concerns often are not transferred to the ballot box or to personal spending decisions.
To make a transition to a more environmentally sustainable society, U.S. citizens (and citizens in other democratic countries) will have to elect ecologically literate and environmentally concerned leaders. A rapidly growing number of citizens are insisting that elected leaders work across party lines to end the political deadlock that has virtually immobilized the U.S. Congress since 1980, with respect to environmental issues and other key concerns.
Instead of weakening or doing away with environmental regulations and the EPA, environmental scientists and economists call for:
· Updating existing environmental laws or passing new ones that deal with the potentially harmful effects from new technologies such as fracking (see
Chapter 15
) and serious environmental issues such as biodiversity loss, groundwater pollution, nonpoint air and water pollution, and climate change.
· Updating all environmental laws to put more emphasis on prevention and the other eight environmental principles listed in
Section 24.1
.
· Use an incentive-based and innovation-based system for meeting environmental regulations used by several European nations instead of the command-and-control system used by the United States. The EPA would establish long-term goals for meeting environmental regulations and heavy penalties for not achieving these goals. This would allow industries more time to meet the goals in any way that works, which would promote innovative ways to meet environmental regulations and could lead to profitable new products and processes.
However, revising existing environmental laws and developing new environmental laws could open up environmental laws to being weakened or abolished by the growing political and economic influence of the U.S anti-environmental movement (see Case Study that follows).
Critical Thinking
1. Do you support or oppose these proposals for strengthening the EPA? Why or why not?
Case Study
A Weaker U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA was formed in 1970 in response to tens of millions of people suffering from severe air and water pollution in the dirty 1960s and calling for federal government to take action to reduce air and water pollution. Since then the EPA has been responsible for enforcing the country’s environmental laws, most of them passed by the U.S. congress in the 1970s.
U.S. environmental laws have been effective, especially in controlling pollution. Since the EPA was formed in 1970 the following has occurred:
· Air pollution is down by 70% and research has shown that this has saved millions of lives.
· Pollution of U.S. waterways has decreased from 66% to 35%.
· Blood levels of toxic lead have dropped by 75%.
· Hundreds of toxic Superfund sites have been cleaned up.
· Ozone depletion in the stratosphere is being reduced.
However, since 1980 the U.S. anti-environmental movement has pressured elected officials to weaken or repeal U.S. environmental laws and to weaken or do away with the EPA. In 1981, Ronald Reagan became president of the United States. He ran on a campaign of weakening or repealing U.S. environmental laws. The Reagan Administration cut the EPA budget by 22%, reduced the number of EPA employees by 30%, hired employees from the industries the EPA was charged with regulating, reduced the number of cases filed against polluters, and relaxed clean air regulations.
Between 1990 and 2017, the EPA recovered from some of these efforts to weaken environmental regulations and had rebuilt the scientific expertise it needs to evaluate proposed environmental regulations. However, in 2017 Donald Trump became president with the goal of weakening environmental regulations and by the end of 2018, had appointed two successive EPA administrators to accomplish this goal. The first one had sued the EPA 14 times as Oklahoma’s Attorney General. The second was an energy lobbyist for the coal industry, vice president of the Washington Coal Club, which includes 300 coal producers, and legislative aide to Senator Jim Inhofe who has stated that climate change is a scientific hoax.
By the end of 2018, EPA administrators had:
· Overturned more than 46 environmental regulations and was in the process of rolling back 31 more. They included regulations that banned coal companies from dumping debris into local streams and required oil and gas companies to report their emissions of climate-changing methane.
· Done away with a regulation requiring that major factories use the best available technology to reduce air pollutants.
· Lifted the freeze on new coal leases on U.S. public lands.
· Eliminated the EPA Office of the Scientific Advisor, whose job was to ensure that the highest quality science was used to help evaluate and make the agency’s policies and decisions.
· Reduced the use of scientific panels to advise the EPA on its policies and decisions and added industry-friendly appointees to the remaining scientific advisory panels.
· Proposed cutting the EPA budget by 31% with a 60% cut in the agency’s enforcement programs, and eliminating 25% of the agency’s jobs many of them devoted to enforcing EPA environmental regulations.
· Proposed virtually eliminating regional water pollution cleanup programs (see
Chapter 11
), including those for the Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico, the Everglades, and the Great Lakes.
· Deleted any mention of climate change on the EPA website.
· Reduced the goal of 23 km/liter (54 mpg) as the fuel efficiency standard for cars, SUVs and light trucks to 16 km/liter (37 mpg).
· Lowered the goal of reducing emissions from U.S. coal-fired power plants from 32% to 1% by 2030.
According to the two newest EPA administrators, these changes are needed to reduce inefficiency and save money. Many corporate leaders and other members of the anti-environmental movement strongly support the above proposals.
In contrast, environmental scientists and economists and many other business leaders oppose them. They warn that if the proposals are adopted, environmental pollution and degradation will increase and will cost hundreds of billions of dollars in worsening health problems and damage to ecosystems. To them, the question is, do we want to return to the dirty 1960s or progress toward a cleaner future?
Critical Thinking
1. Do you support or oppose these proposals for weakening environmental regulations and the EPA? Why or why not?
2. 24.4aRoles of Environmental Groups
3. The spearheads of the global conservation, environmental, and environmental justice movements are the tens of thousands of nonprofit nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) working at the international, national, state, and local levels.
4. NGOs range from grassroots groups with just a few members to mainline organizations. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) operates in 100 countries, with 5 million members globally and 1.2 million members in the United States. Other international groups with large memberships include Greenpeace, the Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
5. Using social networks, text messages, e-mail, and Internet websites, some environmental NGOs have organized themselves into an array of influential international networks. Examples include the Pesticide Action, Climate Action, International Rivers, and Women’s Environment and Development Networks. They collaborate across national borders and monitor the environmental activities of governments, corporations, and international agencies such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO). They also attend international conferences to try to influence negotiations and agreements. They help to expose corruption and violations of national and international environmental agreements, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which prohibits international trade of endangered species (see
Chapter 9).
6. In the United States, more than 8 million citizens belong to more than 30,000 NGOs that deal with environmental issues. They range from small grassroots groups to large, heavily funded mainline groups, the latter usually staffed by expert lawyers, scientists, economists, lobbyists, and fundraisers. The largest of these groups are the WWF, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, the Audubon Society, Greenpeace (
Figure 24.11
), Friends of the Earth, and the NRDC (see the Case Study that follows).
7. Figure 24.11
8. These Greenpeace protesters used an inflatable motorized boat to try to hinder the hunting of whales by a Japanese whaling fleet. For several decades, Greenpeace has engaged in such environmental actions and in environmental education activities.
9.
10.
11. Jeremy sutton-hibbert/Alamy Stock Photo
12. Case Study
13. The Natural Resources Defense Council
14. One of the stated purposes of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is “to establish sustainability and good stewardship of the Earth as central ethical imperatives of human society. … We work to foster the fundamental right of all people to have a voice in decisions that affect their environment. … Ultimately, NRDC strives to help create a new way of life for humankind, one that can be sustained indefinitely without fouling or depleting the resources that support all life on Earth.”
15.
To those ends, NRDC goes to court to stop environmentally harmful practices. It also informs and organizes millions of environmental activists, through its website, magazines, and newsletters, to take actions to protect the environment—globally, regionally, and locally. NRDC regularly informs its supporters about environmental threats all over the world, and helps people to take action by donating money, signing petitions, and writing letters to corporate and government officials and newspaper editors.
16. For example, the NRDC helped forge an agreement among Canadian timber companies, environmentalists, native peoples, and the provincial government of British Columbia (Canada) to protect a vast area of the Great Bear Rainforest from destructive logging. This followed years of pressure from NRDC activists on logging companies, their U.S. corporate customers, and provincial officials to protect the habitats of eagles, grizzly bears, wild salmon, and the rare spirit bear, a subspecies of the American black bear with a white fur coat.
17. The largest environmental groups have become powerful and important forces within the U.S. political system. They have helped to persuade Congress to pass and strengthen environmental laws (
Figure 24.9), and they fight attempts to weaken or repeal these laws.
18. 24.4bGrassroots Environmental Groups
19. The base of the environmental movement in the United States and throughout the world consists of thousands of grassroots citizens’ groups organized to improve environmental quality, often at the local level. Some historians say this movement began in the late 1960s when Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson envisioned organizing the millions of people who were disgusted by pollution and other environmental problems that had grown severe throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Nelson and graduate student Denis Hayes established the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. It involved teach-ins and thousands of public demonstrations focused on pollution, toxic waste, coal mining, lead contamination, and other urgent environmental issues. More than 20 million people took part. Later, Hayes worked on building the Earth Day Network, which now includes more than 180 nations. As a result, each year, Earth Day is now celebrated globally.
20. According to political analyst Konrad von Moltke, “There isn’t a government in the world that would have done anything for the environment if it weren’t for the citizen groups.” Taken together, a loosely connected worldwide network of grassroots NGOs working today for bottom-up political, social, economic, and environmental change can be viewed as an emerging citizen-based global sustainability movement.
21. Since the 1970s, many grassroots groups have worked with individuals and communities to oppose harmful projects such as landfills, waste incinerators, and nuclear waste dumps, as well as to fight against the clear-cutting of forests and pollution from factories and power plants. They have also taken action against environmental injustice (Figure 24.3) and have worked to make many communities more sustainable (see the Case Study that follows).
22. Case Study
23. The Environmental Transformation of Chattanooga, Tennessee
24. Local officials, business leaders, and citizens have worked together to transform Chattanooga, Tennessee, from a highly polluted city to one of the most sustainable and livable cities in the United States (
Figure 24.12
).
25. Figure 24.12
26. Since 1984, citizens have worked together to make the city of Chattanooga, Tennessee, one of the best and most sustainable places to live in the United States.
27.
28.
29.
Kevin Ruck/ Shutterstock.com
30. In 1969, a Federal Air Quality Report rated Chattanooga the most polluted city in the United States. Its air was so polluted by smoke from its industries and coal furnaces that people sometimes had to turn on their vehicle headlights during daylight hours. To make matters worse, the city sits in a valley surrounded by mountains that can trap pollutants in thermal inversions (
Figure 18.9
, left). The Tennessee River, flowing through the city’s industrial center, bubbled with toxic waste. People and industries fled the downtown area and left a wasteland of abandoned and polluting factories, boarded-up buildings, high unemployment, and crime.
31. In 1984, the city decided to get serious about improving its environmental quality. Civic leaders started a Vision 2000 process with a 20-week series of community meetings in which more than 1,700 citizens from all walks of life gathered to build a consensus about what the city could be at the turn of the century. Citizens identified the city’s main problems, set goals, and brainstormed thousands of ideas for solutions.
32.
By 1995, Chattanooga had met most of its original goals. The city had encouraged zero-emission industries to locate there and replaced its diesel buses with a fleet of quiet, zero-emission electric buses, made by a new local firm. The city also launched an innovative recycling program after environmentally concerned citizens blocked construction of a new garbage incinerator that would have emitted harmful air pollutants. These efforts paid off. Since 1989, the levels of the seven major air pollutants in Chattanooga have been lower than the levels required by federal standards. In 2017, the American Lung Association rated Chattanooga as one of the cleanest cities in the United States.
33. Another project involved renovating much of the city’s low-income housing and building new low-income rental units. Chattanooga also built one the world’s largest freshwater aquariums, which became the centerpiece for downtown renewal. The city developed a riverfront park along both banks of the Tennessee River, which runs through downtown. In addition, the city built bike lanes, encouraged carpooling, and created an electric shuttle throughout the downtown to reduce air pollution. Chattanooga now has more than 30 LEED-certified buildings (see
Chapter 16). In other words, the city shifted from a heavily polluted industrial economy to an economy based on sustainability, environmental quality, and tourism.
34. In 1993, the community began the second stage of this process in Revision 2000. Goals included transforming an abandoned and blighted area in South Chattanooga into a mixed community of residences, retail stores, and zero-emission industries where employees can live near their workplaces. By 2009, most of the 2000 goals were met.
35. Chattanooga’s environmental success story is a shining example of people working together to produce a livable and economically and environmentally sustainable city. It is an example of using the win-win principle of sustainability.
36. Grassroots groups have organized conservation land trusts wherein property owners agree to protect their land from development or other harmful environmental activities, often in return for tax breaks on the land’s value. These groups have also spurred other similar efforts to save wetlands, forests, farmland, and ranchland from development, while helping to restore clear-cut forests, degraded grasslands, and wetlands and rivers that have been degraded by pollution.
37. The internet, social networking, and text messaging have become important tools for grassroots groups. With these tools, they can expand their membership, raise funds, and quickly plan and execute actions such as demonstrations and rallies.
38. Most grassroots environmental groups use nonviolent and nondestructive tactics such as protest marches, sitting in trees to help prevent the clear-cutting of old-growth forests (
Individuals Matter 24.2
), and other approaches (Figure 24.11) to help educate and encourage the public to oppose various environmentally harmful activities. Such tactics often work because they produce bad publicity for practices and businesses that threaten or degrade the environment.
39.
Individuals Matter 24.2
40. Butterfly in a Redwood Tree
41.
42. © Julia Butterfly Hill
43. “Butterfly” is the nickname given to Julia Hill, who spent 2 years of her life on a small platform near the top of a giant redwood tree in California. She was protesting the clear-cutting of a forest of these ancient trees, some of them more than 1,000 years old. She and other protesters occupied these trees illegally, as a form of nonviolent civil disobedience.
44. Butterfly had never participated in any such act of civil disobedience or environmental protest. She went to the site to express her belief that it was wrong for the trees’ owners to cut them down for short-term economic gain. She planned to stay for only a few days.
45. However, after seeing the destruction and climbing one of these magnificent trees, she ended up staying in the tree for 2 years to publicize what was happening and to help save the surrounding trees. She became a symbol of the protest and during her stay used a cell phone to communicate with members of the mass media throughout the world to help develop public support for saving the trees. Her living space was a platform not much bigger than a king-sized bed, 55 meters (180 feet) above the ground. Over time, she endured high winds, intense rainstorms, snow, and ice, and hours of noise from trucks, chainsaws, and helicopters.
46. Although Butterfly lost her courageous battle to save the surrounding forest, she persuaded Pacific Lumber MAXXAM to save her tree (called Luna) and a 60-meter (200-foot) buffer zone around it. Not too long after she descended from her perch, someone used a chainsaw to seriously damage the tree. Cables and steel plates are now used to preserve it.
47. In a larger sense, Butterfly did not really lose her fight. She wrote a book about her stand and has been traveling to campuses all over the world. In the process, she has inspired many people to stand up for protecting biodiversity and other environmental causes.
24.4cStudent Environmental Groups
Hundreds of campus and many high school environmental groups have been leading the way to make their schools and local communities more sustainable (
Core Case Study
). Most of these groups work with members of their school’s faculty and administration to bring about environmental improvements in their schools.
For example, at Northland College in Ashland, Wisconsin, students helped design a green living and learning center (see
Tying It All Together
, end of chapter), which houses 150 students and features a wind turbine, solar panels, furniture made of recycled materials, and waterless (composting) toilets. Northland students voted to impose a green fee of $40 per semester on themselves to help finance the college’s sustainability programs.
Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, integrates sustainability throughout its curriculum and uses wind power to offset all of its electricity use. Since 1990, De Anza Community College in Cupertino, California, has been integrating sustainability concepts into its curriculum. In addition, a team of students, faculty, administrators, and members of the local community worked together to build the LEED-platinum-certified Kirsch Center for Environmental Studies.
Many student groups make environmental audits of their campuses or schools. They use the resulting data to propose changes that could make their campuses or schools more environmentally sustainable, usually while saving money in the process. Such audits have focused on implementing or improving recycling programs, convincing university food services to buy more food from local organic farms, improving the energy efficiency of buildings, shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and implementing concepts of environmental sustainability throughout the curriculum.
Other students have focused on institutional investments. Since 2015, more than 400 student-led campaigns have been pressuring colleges and universities to stop investing their endowment funds in environmentally harmful industries, such as coal-fired electricity production. They also work toward getting their schools to increase their investments in renewable energy, improving energy efficiency, and other environmentally beneficial businesses.
Critical Thinking
55. What major steps is your school taking to increase its own environmental sustainability (
Core Case Study
) and to educate its students about environmental sustainability?
56. Since the mid-1980s, there has been a boom in environmental awareness on college campuses and in public and private schools around the world. In the United States, hundreds of colleges and universities have now taken the lead in a quest to become more sustainable by making their campuses greener and educating their students about
sustainability
—the capacity of the earth’s natural systems and human cultural systems to survive, flourish, and adapt to changing environmental conditions into the long-term future.
57. For example, at Oberlin College in Ohio, a group of students worked with faculty members and architects to design a more sustainable environmental studies building (
Figure 24.1
) powered by solar panels, which produce 30% more electricity than the building uses. Closed-loop underground geothermal wells provide heating and cooling. In its solar greenhouse, a series of open tanks populated by plants and other organisms purifies the building’s wastewater. The building collects rainwater for irrigating the surrounding grasses, gardens, and meadow, which contain a diversity of plant and animal species.
58. Figure 24.1
59. The Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies at Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio.
60.
61. Robb Williamson/NREL
62. At the University of Washington in Seattle, more than half of the food served on campus comes from the campus farm and other small local producers. All eggs served are organic from cage-free hens. This saves the school money and cuts it energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
63. The University of California, San Diego (UCSD), uses only drought-tolerant native plants for all of its new landscaping, which saves the campus a great deal of water that has historically been used to water grass in this drought-stricken area of the country. More than a third of UCSD’s vehicle fleet is all electric and the school runs 55 of its vehicles on biofuel.
64. Each year the Sierra Club ranks the 20 greenest colleges and universities in America. In 2018, the top six (with the first two tied for first place) were (1) Green Mountain College in Vermont, for its green curriculum, research, campus engagement, and commitment to powering the campus with renewable energy; (1) University of California, Irvine, for its green core curriculum, green campus construction, and campus and public engagement; (2) University of New Hampshire, for its curriculum, organic dairy farm, food waste reduction system and campus and public engagement; (3) University of Connecticut, for its green food system, a goal to become carbon neutral by 2050, and its campus and public engagement; (4) Colorado State University, for its sustainability curriculum, and campus and public engagement; and (5) Arizona State University, for its research, carbon-neutral policy for new buildings, and campus and public engagement.
65. In addition to making campuses greener, colleges are increasingly offering environmental sustainability courses and programs. At Catawba College, many students have accompanied Professor Luke Dollar, a national Geographic Explorer, on trips to Madagascar to take part in his research on that country’s endangered species and ecosystems.
66. These are just a few examples of the hundreds of institutions educating students who will provide leadership in working to make our societies and economies more sustainable during the next few decades. Maybe you will join the ranks of such environmental leaders.
67. Since the mid-1980s, there has been a boom in environmental awareness on college campuses and in public and private schools around the world. In the United States, hundreds of colleges and universities have now taken the lead in a quest to become more sustainable by making their campuses greener and educating their students about
sustainability
—the capacity of the earth’s natural systems and human cultural systems to survive, flourish, and adapt to changing environmental conditions into the long-term future.
68. For example, at Oberlin College in Ohio, a group of students worked with faculty members and architects to design a more sustainable environmental studies building (
Figure 24.1
) powered by solar panels, which produce 30% more electricity than the building uses. Closed-loop underground geothermal wells provide heating and cooling. In its solar greenhouse, a series of open tanks populated by plants and other organisms purifies the building’s wastewater. The building collects rainwater for irrigating the surrounding grasses, gardens, and meadow, which contain a diversity of plant and animal species.
69. Figure 24.1
70. The Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies at Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio.
71.
72. Robb Williamson/NREL
73. At the University of Washington in Seattle, more than half of the food served on campus comes from the campus farm and other small local producers. All eggs served are organic from cage-free hens. This saves the school money and cuts it energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
74. The University of California, San Diego (UCSD), uses only drought-tolerant native plants for all of its new landscaping, which saves the campus a great deal of water that has historically been used to water grass in this drought-stricken area of the country. More than a third of UCSD’s vehicle fleet is all electric and the school runs 55 of its vehicles on biofuel.
75. Each year the Sierra Club ranks the 20 greenest colleges and universities in America. In 2018, the top six (with the first two tied for first place) were (1) Green Mountain College in Vermont, for its green curriculum, research, campus engagement, and commitment to powering the campus with renewable energy; (1) University of California, Irvine, for its green core curriculum, green campus construction, and campus and public engagement; (2) University of New Hampshire, for its curriculum, organic dairy farm, food waste reduction system and campus and public engagement; (3) University of Connecticut, for its green food system, a goal to become carbon neutral by 2050, and its campus and public engagement; (4) Colorado State University, for its sustainability curriculum, and campus and public engagement; and (5) Arizona State University, for its research, carbon-neutral policy for new buildings, and campus and public engagement.
76. In addition to making campuses greener, colleges are increasingly offering environmental sustainability courses and programs. At Catawba College, many students have accompanied Professor Luke Dollar, a national Geographic Explorer, on trips to Madagascar to take part in his research on that country’s endangered species and ecosystems.
77. These are just a few examples of the hundreds of institutions educating students who will provide leadership in working to make our societies and economies more sustainable during the next few decades. Maybe you will join the ranks of such environmental leaders.
78. 24.5aGlobal Environmental Security
79.
Countries are legitimately concerned with national security and economic security. However, ecologists and many economists point out that all economies are supported by the earth’s natural capital (
Figure 1.3
and
Figure 23.5
). Thus, environmental security, economic security, and national security are interrelated.
80. According to environmental scientist Norman Myers, “National security is no longer about fighting forces and weaponry alone. It relates increasingly to watersheds, croplands, forests, genetic resources, climate, and other factors that, taken together, are as crucial to a nation’s security as are military factors.”
81. For example, Haiti has suffered from a severe loss of environmental and economic security because of a combination of rapid population growth, deforestation, severe soil erosion, rampant poverty, and political disruption. In a desperate struggle for survival, its people have stripped away most of the country’s trees and other vegetation for use as firewood (
Figure 24.13
and
Figure 10.17
). Because of this, along with several damaging hurricanes, the percentage of Haiti’s land that was forested dropped from more than 60% in 1923 to about 30% in 2016. This major loss of vegetation led to severe soil erosion. Taken together, these factors along with a severe earthquake in 2010 have greatly reduced food production and led to greater poverty, malnutrition, and social unrest.
82. Figure 24.13
83. Hillsides stripped of vegetation near Haiti’s capital city of Port-au-Prince.
84.
85.
86. ROBIN MOORE/National Geographic Image Collection
87. Research by Thomas Homer-Dixon, director of Canada’s Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, has revealed a strong correlation between growing scarcities of resources, such as cropland, water, and forests, and the spread of civil unrest and violence that can lead to failing states. These countries have dysfunctional governments that can no longer provide security and basic services such as education and health care. They tend to suffer from a breakdown of law and order. Failing states also generate millions of refugees who are displaced from their homes and land, often fleeing for their lives.
88. Norman Myers and other analysts call for all countries to make environmental security a major focus of diplomacy and government policy at all levels.
24.5bInternational Environmental Policies
A number of international environmental organizations help shape and set global environmental policy and improve environmental security and sustainability. Perhaps the most influential is the United Nations, which houses a large family of organizations including the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP), and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
Other organizations that make or influence environmental decisions are the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Despite their often limited funding, these and other organizations have played important roles in:
· Expanding understanding of environmental issues;
· Gathering and evaluating environmental data;
· Developing and monitoring international environmental treaties;
· Providing grants and loans for sustainable economic development and reduction of poverty; and
· Helping more than 100 nations to develop environmental laws and institutions.
In 1992, governments of more than 178 nations and hundreds of NGOs met at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The major policy outcome of this conference was Agenda 21, a global agenda for sustainable development in the 21st century, with goals for addressing the world’s social, economic, and environmental problems. The conference also established the Commission on Sustainable Development to monitor progress toward the Agenda 21 goals.
Despite the good intentions of Agenda 21, little progress has been made toward its goals. In 2012, the UNEP evaluated progress and found that, of the 90 most crucial goals, only 4 had been approached and none had been achieved. The removal of lead from gasoline, the phasing out of ozone-depleting chemicals, improvements to drinking water supplies in poor countries, and research on pollution of the oceans were the four areas where significant progress had been made. In other areas, such as carbon dioxide emissions, extinction threats, overfishing, ocean dead zones, and harm to coral reefs, the world has not made much progress in achieving the Agenda 21 goals.
In 2012, on the 20th anniversary of UNCED, the UN hosted Rio+20, another Earth Summit conference to revisit the issues addressed in 1992. It was the largest conference ever, with 50,000 attendees, and as it kicked off, there were up to 50,000 non-attendees demonstrating in the streets of Rio de Janeiro. After 3 days, the conferees produced a nonbinding document as a roadmap for sustainable development. The representatives of more than 190 nations, including the United States, ratified it.
However, some analysts and organizations criticized the agreement for focusing primarily on traditional economic growth without enough attention to environmentally sustainable development. The document contained no enforceable commitment on climate change. It did not address any proposal to end fossil fuel subsidies and it failed to promote a shift to renewable energy sources and improving energy efficiency. Critics also argued that, because of excessive influence by corporate sponsors, the conference was unable to make real progress toward shifting the world onto a more sustainable path.
Figure 24.14
summarizes some of the successes and failures from long-term international efforts to deal with global environmental problems.
Figure 24.14
Trade-offs: There have been successes and failures in international efforts to deal with global environmental problems.
Critical Thinking:
1. In weighing these successes and failures, do you believe that international conferences are valuable and should be continued? Why or why not? If you agree, how would you improve their effectiveness? If you disagree, what are some alternatives?
Photo: NASA
In 2018, executives, diplomats, and elected leaders participated in an international conference held in Sweden on what to do about climate change. At the conference, fifteen-year-old Greta Thunberg of Sweden delivered a strong rebuke on behalf of the world’s youth climate movement. She said, “We have not come here to beg the world leaders. They have ignored us in the past and they will ignore us again. We have come here to let them know that change is coming whether they like it or not. The people will rise to the challenge.” According to Kevin Andersen, professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester, Thunberg “demonstrates more clarity and leadership in one speech than a quarter of a century of the combined contributions of so-called world leaders.”
The primary focus of the international community on environmental problems has been the development of various international environmental laws and nonbinding policy declarations called conventions. There are more than 500 international environmental treaties and agreements—known as multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs).
To date, the Montreal Protocol and the Copenhagen Amendment for protecting the ozone layer (
Chapter 18) are the most successful examples of such agreements. The MEA process faces a number of challenges. MEAs typically take years to develop and require full consensus to implement. There is often a lack of funding, it becomes difficult to monitor and enforce these agreements, and they sometimes conflict with one another.
89. 24.5cRole of Corporations in Promoting Environmental Sustainability
90. In our increasingly globalized economy, it has become clear that governments and corporations must work together to achieve goals for increased environmental sustainability. Governments can set environmental standards and goals through legislation and regulations, and corporations generally have efficient ways to accomplish such goals. Making a transition to more sustainable societies and economies will require huge amounts of investment capital and research and development funding. Most of this money will likely have to come from profitable corporations, especially considering the budgetary pressures faced by most governments. Thus, corporations could play a vital role in achieving a more sustainable future.
91. The good news is that some thoughtful business and political leaders are realizing that “business as usual” is no longer a viable option. A growing number of corporate chief executive officers (CEOs) and investors are aware that there is considerable money to be made from developing and selling green products and services during this century. This switch to new product lines is guided by the concept of eco-efficiency, which is about finding ways to create more economic value with less harmful health and environmental impacts. Improving eco-efficiency can also save businesses money and help them to meet their financial responsibilities to stockholders and investors.
92. Companies such as 3M have found that such investments can improve their bottom lines considerably. (See Case Study,
Chapter 17
.)
93. 24.6aGreen Planning
94. Governments have the power to play strong roles in making a transition to a more sustainable future. In some countries, the governments are doing just that in a process called green planning—the creation of long-term environmental management strategies with the ultimate goal of achieving greater environmental and economic sustainability and a high quality of life for a country’s citizens.
95. Green plans usually involve most or all of the policy-guiding principles listed in Section 24.1. Some include other principles such as the responsibility to leave the world sustainable for future generations, along with other priorities embodied in the principles of sustainability. Green plans are now being employed in several nations, including Mexico, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, and The Netherlands (see the Case Study that follows).
96. Case Study
97. The Netherlands—A Model for a National Green Plan
98. In 1989, the northern European nation of The Netherlands began implementing a green plan called the National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP). It resulted from widespread public alarm over declining environmental quality. The goal of this national green plan is to cut many types of pollution by 70–90% and achieve the world’s first environmentally sustainable economy within 25 years, or one lifetime.
99. The Dutch government began by identifying eight major areas for improvement: climate change, acid deposition, eutrophication, toxic chemicals, waste disposal, groundwater depletion, unsustainable use of renewable and nonrenewable resources, and local nuisances (mostly noise and odor pollution).
100. Next, the government formed a task force consisting of people in industry, government, and citizens’ groups for each of the eight areas, and asked each task force to agree on targets and timetables for drastically reducing pollution. Each group was free to pursue whatever policies or technologies it wanted. However, if a group could not agree, the government would impose its own targets, timetables, and stiff penalties for industries not meeting certain pollution reduction goals.
101. Each task force focused on four general themes: life-cycle management; energy efficiency, with the government committing $385 million per year to energy conservation programs; environmentally sustainable technologies, also supported by a government program; and improving public awareness through a massive government-sponsored public education program. The NEPP has established over 200 targets as part of an integrated environmental policy program. The program is revised every 4 years to meet changing needs. Updates on progress and new problems are done every year.
102.
Many of the country’s industrial leaders like the NEPP because they can make investments in pollution prevention and pollution control with less financial risk and a high degree of certainty about long-term environmental policy. They are also free to deal with the problems in ways that make the most sense for their businesses. Many industrial leaders have learned that creating more environmentally sound products and processes often reduces costs and increases profits. In addition, Dutch companies are making money in the global marketplace selling the technologies that were created to meet the NEPP goals.
103. The NEPP was the first attempt by any country to foster a national debate on the issue of environmental sustainability and to encourage innovative solutions to environmental problems. By 2015, over 70% of the original goals had been met. This has led to the expansion of organic agriculture, greater reliance on bicycles (
Figure 24.15
), and more ecologically sound housing developments. The NEPP is regarded as a blueprint for other nations wishing to create green plans.
104. Figure 24.15
105. Bicycles are used for about one-third of all urban trips in the Netherlands. These bicycles are in Amsterdam, one of the world’s most bicycle-friendly cities.
106.
107.
108.
dinosmichail/ Shutterstock.com
24.6bShifting to More Environmentally Sustainable Societies
Scientists and other experts have suggested guidelines that we can follow as we work toward making our societies more environmentally sustainable. First, work on preventing or minimizing environmental problems instead of letting them build up to crisis levels. Second, use well-designed and carefully monitored marketplace solutions (see
Chapter 23
) to help prevent or reduce the harmful impact of most environmental problems. Third, cooperate and innovate to find win-win solutions or trade-offs to environmental problems and injustices, in keeping with one of the principles of sustainability. Fourth, be honest and objective. People on both sides of thorny environmental issues should take a vow not to exaggerate or distort their positions in attempts to play win-lose or winner-take-all games. Some environmental scientists have specialized in helping people and organizations to apply these principles.
The world has the knowledge, technologies, and financial resources to shift to more equitable and environmentally sustainable global and national policies. Making this shift is primarily an economic, political, and ethical decision (see
Chapter 25
for a discussion of environmental ethics). It involves shifting to more sustainable forestry (
Figure 10.14
), food production (
Figure 12.35
), water resource use (
Figure 13.20
and
Figure 13.22
), energy resource use (
Figure 16.20
, and
Figure 16.23
), and economies (
Figure 23.18
), while slowing climate change (
Figure 19.19
) and educating public and elected officials about the urgent need to make this shift over the next several decades.
Some say that the call for making this shift is idealistic and unrealistic. Others say that it is unrealistic and dangerous to keep assuming that our present course is sustainable, and they warn that we have precious little time to change our unsustainable course.
Big Ideas
109. An important outcome of the political process is environmental policy—the body of laws, regulations, and programs that are designed, implemented, funded, and enforced by one or more government agencies.
110. All politics is local, and individuals can work with each other to become part of political processes that influence environmental policies (individuals matter).
111. Environmental security is necessary for economic security and is at least as important as national security; making the transition to more environmentally sustainable societies will require that nations cooperate just as many do for national security purposes.
112. ollege students around the world have shown that it is possible to create sustainable environmental policies, at least in the communities in and around many college campuses (
Core Case Study
). The world has the abilities and resources to implement policies that would help to eradicate poverty and malnutrition, eliminate illiteracy, sharply reduce infectious diseases, stabilize human populations, and protect the earth’s natural capital. We can do this by applying the scientific principles of sustainability —relying much more on solar energy and other renewable energy sources, reusing and recycling much more of what we produce, and respecting, restoring, and protecting as much as possible of the biodiversity that supports our lives and economies.
113. National and international policy makers could also be guided by the three economic, political, and ethical principles of sustainability. In the political arena, they will have to try harder to find win-win solutions that benefit the largest numbers of people while also benefiting the environment. Such solutions will likely have to include internalizing the harmful environmental and health costs of producing and using goods and services (full-cost pricing). In addition, if they are truly interested in long-term sustainability, these decision makers, as well as all the rest of us, must make each decision with future generations in mind—seeking to leave the world in at least as good a condition as what we now enjoy.
114. Making a shift to more sustainable societies and economies can occur much more rapidly than we think. Any or all of us can choose to take part in the change by becoming politically aware, informed, and active with regard to issues that affect our environmental and political futures.
Critical Thinking
115. Consider the various actions taken by college students and their institutions as described in this chapter’s Core Case Study, as well as in other parts of this chapter. Which one or more of these actions would be appropriate and effective on your campus? Explain. Pick one of these actions and write a brief plan for implementing it where you go to school.
116. Pick an environmental problem that affects the area where you live and decide where in the policy life cycle (Figure 24.2) the problem could best be placed. Apply the cycle to this problem and describe how the problem has progressed (or will likely progress) through each stage. If your problem has not progressed to the policy adjustment stage, explain how you think the policy dealing with the problem could be adjusted, if at all.
117. Explain why you agree or disagree with each of the eight principles listed on in Section 24.1, which are recommended by some analysts for use in making environmental policy decisions. Which three of these principles do you think are the most important? Why?
118. What are two ways in which the scientific process described in Chapter 2 (see
Figure 2.2
) parallels the policy life cycle (Figure 24.2)? What are two ways in which they differ?
119.
Do you think that corporations and government bodies are ever justified in filing SLAPP lawsuits? Give three reasons for your answer. Do you think that potential defendants of SLAPP suits should be protected in any way from such suits? Why or why not?
120. Government agencies can help to keep an economy growing or to boost certain types of economic development by, for example, building or expanding a major highway through an undeveloped area. Proponents of such development have argued that requiring environmental impact statements for these projects interferes with efforts to help the economy. Do you agree? Is this a problem? Why or why not?
121. Congratulations! You are in charge of the country where you live. List the five most important components of your environmental policy.
122. List three ways in which you could apply the material in
Section 24.2
to try to have an effect on an environmental policy making process.
Data Analysis
Choose an environmental issue that you have studied in this course, such as climate change, population growth, or biodiversity loss. Conduct a poll of students, faculty, staff, and local residents in your community by asking them the questions that follow, relating to your particular environmental issue. Poll as many people as you can in order to get a large sample. Create categories. For example, note whether each respondent is male or female. By creating such categories, you are placing each person into a respondent pool. You can add other questions about age, political leaning, and other factors to refine your pools.
Poll Questions
|
Question 1 |
On a scale of 1 to 10, how knowledgeable are you about environmental issue X? |
|
Question 2 |
On a scale of 1 to 10, how aware are you of ways in which you, as an individual, impact policy making related to environmental issue X? |
|
Question 3 |
On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it for you to learn more about environmental issue X? |
|
Question 4 |
On a scale of 1 to 10, how sure are you that an individual can have a positive influence on policy making related to environmental issue X? |
|
Question 5 |
On a scale of 1 to 10, how sure are you that the government is providing the appropriate level of leadership with regard to environmental issue X? |
123. Collect your data and analyze your findings to measure any differences among the respondent pools.
124. List any major conclusions you would draw from the data.
125. Publicize your findings on your school’s website or in the local newspaper.
126.
C
hap2
4
·
·
Campuses
·
24.1
Government Role in a Transition to Sustainable Societies
·
24.1a
Environmental Laws and Regulations
·
24.1b
The Democratic Process
·
24.1c
Environmental Justice
·
24.1d
Environmental Policy Principles
·
24.2
Envir
onmental Policy
·
24.2a
Democratic Government: The U.S. Model
·
24.2b
Developing Environmental Policy
—
a Complex and Controversial
Process
·
24.2c
Influencing Environmental Pol
icy
·
24.2d
Environmental Leadership
·
24.3
Environmental Laws
·
24.3a
Environmental Law and Lawsuits
·
24.3b
U.S. Environmental Laws
·
24.3c
Attempts to Weaken U.S. Environmental Laws
·
24.4
Environmental Groups
·
24.4a
Roles of Environmental Groups
·
24.4b
Grassroots Environmental Groups
·
24.4c
Student Environmental Groups
·
24.5
Environmental Security
·
24.5a
Global Environmental Security
·
24.5b
International Environmental Policies
·
24.5c
Role of Corporations in Promoting Environmental Sustainability
·
24.6
Sustainable and Just Environmental Policies
·
24.6a
Green Planning
·
24.6b
Shifting to More Environmentally Sustainable Societies
·
Tying It All Together
Greening College Campuses and Sustainability
Chap24
Campuses
24.1Government Role in a Transition to Sustainable Societies
24.1aEnvironmental Laws and Regulations
24.1bThe Democratic
Process
24.1cEnvironmental Justice
24.1dEnvironmental Policy Principles
24.2Environmental Policy
24.2aDemocratic Government: The U.S. Model
24.2bDeveloping Environmental Policy—a Complex and Controversial
Process
24.2cInfluencing Environmental Policy
24.2dEnvironmental Leadership
24.3Environmental Laws
24.3aEnvironmental Law and Lawsuits
24.3bU.S. Environmental Laws
24.3cAttempts to Weaken U.S. Environmental Laws
24.4Environmental Groups
24.4aRoles of Environmental Groups
24.4bGrassroots Environmental Groups
24.4cStudent Environmental Groups
24.5Environmental Security
24.5aGlobal Environmental Security
24.5bInternational Environmental Policies
24.5cRole of Corporations in Promoting Environmental Sustainability
24.6Sustainable and Just Environmental Policies
24.6aGreen Planning
24.6bShifting to More Environmentally Sustainable Societies
Tying It All TogetherGreening College Campuses and Sustainability
Chapter25
·
·
Chapter Introduction
· Core
Case Study
Biosphere 2—A Lesson in Humility
· 25.1
Environmental Worldviews
· 25.1a
Differing Environmental Worldviews
· 25.1b
Human-Centered Environmental Worldviews
· 25.1c
Can We Manage the Earth?
· 25.1d
Life-Centered and Earth-Centered Environmental Worldviews
· 25.2
Role Of Education
· 25.2a
Environmental Literacy
· 25.2b
Learning from the Earth
· 25.3
Living More Sustainably
· 25.3a
Living More Simply and Lightly on the Earth
· 25.3b
Bringing About a Sustainability Revolution in Your Lifetime
· Tying It All Together
Biosphere 2: A Lesson in Humility
·
Chapter Review
·
Critical Thinking
·
Doing Environmental Science
·
Ecological Footprint Analysis
· 25.1aDiffering Environmental Worldviews
· People disagree on how serious our environmental problems are, as well as on what we should do about them. One reason for these disagreements is that people have different environmental worldviews. Your environmental worldview is the assumptions and beliefs that you have about how the natural world works and how you think you should interact with the environment. It is determined partly by your environmental ethics—what you believe about what is right and what is wrong in our behavior toward the environment. According to environmental ethicist Robert Cahn:
· The main ingredients of an environmental ethic are caring about the planet and all of its inhabitants . . . and living each day so as to leave the lightest possible footprints on the planet.
· People with differing environmental worldviews can study the same data, be logically consistent in their analysis of those data, and arrive at quite different conclusions. This happens because they begin with different assumptions and values.
25.1bHuman-Centered Environmental Worldviews
Human-centered environmental worldviews focus primarily on the needs and wants of people. According to one such worldview, called the planetary management worldview:
· Humans are the planet’s most important, intelligent, and dominant species.
· Humans should and can manage and dominate the earth mostly for their own benefit.
· Other species and parts of nature should be valued primarily on how useful they are to humans.
· Because of ever-increasing economic growth, there is always more and it is for us.
Here are three variations of the planetary management environmental worldview:
· The no-problem school: We can solve any environmental, population, or resource problem with more economic growth and development, better management, and better technology.
· The free-market school: The best way to manage the planet for human benefit is through a free-market global economy with minimal government interference and regulation. All public property resources should be converted to private property resources, and the global marketplace, governed by free-market competition, should decide essentially everything.
· The spaceship-earth school: The blue marble in space that we call the Earth (see
chapter-opening photo
) is like a spaceship: a complex machine that we can understand, dominate, change, and manage, in order to provide a good life for everyone without overloading natural systems.
Another human-centered environmental worldview is the stewardship worldview. This view assumes that we have an ethical responsibility to be responsible managers, or stewards, of the earth. It also calls for us to encourage environmentally beneficial forms of economic growth and development and discourage environmentally harmful forms.
Some people with the stewardship worldview believe that we have an ethical obligation to save the earth. American farmer, philosopher, and poet Wendell Berry calls this “arrogant ignorance.” He and others point out that earth does not need saving. It has sustained an incredible variety of life for 3.8 billion years despite major changes in environmental conditions. According to Berry and other analysts, what needs saving and reform is the current human civilization that is degrading its life-support system and threatening up to half of the world’s species with extinction.
Historians point out that so far, every major human civilization has eventually declined for various reasons. Some collapsed because of severe environmental degradation, such as deforestation and a failure to protect vital topsoil. The study of past human civilizations reveals two early warning signs in civilizations heading for collapse. The first sign is gridlock when civilizations are unable to understand or resolve major, complex problems that could lead to their downfall. The second sign, which occurs when the situation gets more desperate, is the substitution of beliefs for facts, evidence, and critical thinking. Despite increasing scientific and other evidence of deteriorating environmental, economic, and social conditions, many people deny the threats and believe that some new technology or some unknown factor will prevent the collapse of our civilization.
25.1cCan We Manage the Earth?
Some people believe that any human-centered worldview will eventually fail because it wrongly assumes we now have or can gain enough knowledge and wisdom to become effective managers or stewards of the earth. Critics of human-centered worldviews point out that we are living unsustainably by taking over most of the earth’s land and water, changing the earth’s climate, acidifying the global ocean, and greatly increasing species extinction. According to some scientists, there is evidence that we have exceeded four of the earth’s planetary boundaries, or ecological tipping points (see
Science Focus 3.2
), and are heading toward exceeding other ecological tipping points. We are doing this even though we have much to learn about how the earth works, how it supports all life and our economies (
Figure 23.5
), and what goes on in a handful of soil, a patch of forest (
Figure 25.2
), the bottom of the ocean, and most other parts of the planet.
Figure 25.2
We have limited understanding of how the trees, other plants, and animals in this patch of sequoia forest in California survive, interact, and change in response to changing environmental conditions.
Critical Thinking:
1. How does this lack of knowledge relate to the planetary management worldview? Does this mean that we should never cut such trees? Explain.
STILLFX/ Shutterstock.com
As biologist David Ehrenfeld puts it, “In no important instance have we been able to demonstrate comprehensive successful management of the world, nor do we understand it well enough to manage it even in theory.” Biologist and environmental philosopher René Dubos made a related observation: “The belief that we can manage the earth and improve on nature is probably the ultimate expression of human conceit.” The failure of the Biosphere 2 science project (
Core Case Study
) supports this view.
According to some critics of human-centered worldviews, an unregulated global free-market approach will not put us on a more sustainable path because it is based on ever-increasing economic growth of essentially any type (
Figure 23.4
). These critics argue that we cannot have unlimited economic growth and consumption on a finite planet with ecological limits or boundaries. They also call for using the marketplace to discourage environmentally harmful forms of economic growth and to promote more environmentally beneficial forms of economic development (
Figure 23.17
and
Figure 23.18
)
1/20,000th
Fraction of the total time life has existed on the earth during which humans have existed
The image of the earth as a gigantic spaceship in space (see chapter-opening photo) has played an important role in raising global environmental awareness. However, critics argue that thinking of the earth as a spaceship that we can manage is an oversimplified and misleading way to view an incredibly complex and ever-changing planet. They point out that we are a newcomer species that has been around for only about 200,000 years of the planet’s 3.8 billion years of life (1/20,000th of the total time life has existed), with far too little understanding of how the planet works and sustains all life and our economies. This makes it unlikely that we can manage the planet.
25.1dLife-Centered and Earth-Centered Environmental Worldviews
Life-centered environmental worldviews hold that all forms of life have value as participating members of the biosphere, regardless of their potential or actual use to humans. However, people disagree over how far we should extend our ethical concerns for various forms and levels of life (
Figure 25.3
).
Figure 25.3
Levels of ethical concern. People disagree about how far we should extend our ethical concerns on this scale.
Eventually, all species become extinct. However, most people with a life-centered worldview believe that we have an ethical responsibility to avoid hastening the extinction of species, for two reasons. First, each species is a unique part of the diverse genetic information that helps the earth’s life to continue by changing in response to changes in environmental conditions. Second, every species has the potential for providing us economic and other benefits through its participation in providing ecosystem services.
People with an earth-centered environmental worldview believe that we have an ethical responsibility to take a wider view and preserve the earth’s biodiversity, ecosystem services, and the functioning of its life-support systems for the benefit of the earth’s life, now and in the future. According to German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer: “The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children.”
One earth-centered worldview is called the environmental wisdom worldview, which in many ways is the opposite of the planetary management worldview. According to this view:
· We need to learn how nature has sustained life on the earth for 3.8 billion years and use these lessons from nature (environmental wisdom or biomimicry) to guide us in living more simply and sustainably.
· We are part of—not apart from—the community of life and the ecological processes that sustain all life.
· We are not in charge of the world.
·
We are subject to nature’s scientific laws that cannot be broken.
· Human economies and other systems are subsystems of the earth’s life-support systems (
Figure 23.5).
· The earth’s natural capital (
Figure 1.3
) keeps us and other species alive and supports our economies.
· We need to learn how to work with nature (
Figure 25.4
) instead of trying to conquer it.
· By not degrading the earth’s life-support system, we act in our own self-interest. Earth care is self-care.
· We have an ethical responsibility to leave the earth in as good a condition or better than what we inherited—in keeping with the ethical principle of sustainability.
Figure 25.4
The earth flag is a symbol of commitment to promoting environmental and economic sustainability by working with the earth at the individual, local, national, and international levels.
Courtesy of Earth Flag, CO., 33 Roberts Road, Cambridge, MA 02138
In 2000, the United Nations published the Earth Charter, which was created with the help of 100,000 people in 51 countries and 25 global leaders in environmental science, business, politics, religion, and education. The charter incorporates many of the ideas and ethical concerns found in the earth-centered environmental worldview. Here are 6 of its 16 guiding ethical principles:
· Respect the earth and its life in all its diversity.
· Care for life with understanding, love, and compassion.
· Build societies that are free, just, participatory, sustainable, and peaceful.
· Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection.
· Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.
The planetary management, stewardship, and environmental wisdom worldviews differ over how public resources should be managed in many parts of the world, including the United States (see the following Case Study).
Case Study
Managing Public Lands in the United States—A Clash of Worldviews
No nation has set aside as much land for public use, resource extraction, enjoyment, and wildlife habitat as has the United States. About 28% of the country’s land is jointly owned by all U.S. citizens and managed for them by the federal government. About three-fourths of this federal public land is in Alaska and another fifth is in the western states (
Figure 25.5
).
Figure 25.5
Natural capital: National forests, parks, and wildlife refuges managed by the U.S. federal government.
Critical Thinking:
1. Do you think U.S. citizens should jointly own more or less of the nation’s land? Explain.
(Compiled by the authors using data from U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. National Park Service.)
Some federal public lands are used for many different purposes. For example, the National Forest System consists of 155 national forests and 20 national grasslands. These lands, managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), are used for logging, mining, livestock grazing, farming, oil and gas extraction, recreation, and conservation of watershed, soil, and wildlife resources.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages large areas of land—40% of all land managed by the federal government and 13% of the total U.S. land surface—mostly in the western states and Alaska. These lands are used primarily for mining, oil and gas extraction, and livestock grazing.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) manages 562 national wildlife refuges. Most refuges protect habitats and breeding areas for waterfowl (
Figure 9.20
) and big game to provide a harvestable supply of these species for hunters. Permitted activities in most refuges include hunting, trapping, fishing, oil and gas development, mining, logging, grazing, farming, and some military activities.
The uses of some other public lands are more restricted. The National Park System, managed by the National Park Service (NPS), includes 59 major parks (see
Chapter 1
0
Case Study and opening photo) and 359 national recreation areas, monuments, memorials, battlefields, historic sites, parkways, trails, rivers, seashores, and lakeshores. Only camping, hiking, sport fishing, and boating can take place in the national parks, whereas hunting, mining, and oil and gas drilling are allowed in national recreation areas.
The most restricted public lands are 756 roadless areas that make up the National Wilderness Preservation System (
Figure 10.23
). These areas lie within the other public lands and are managed by the agencies in charge of those surrounding lands. Most of these areas are open only for recreational activities such as hiking, sport fishing, camping, and non-motorized boating.
Many federal lands contain valuable oil, natural gas, coal, geothermal, timber, and mineral resources. Since the 1800s, there has been intense controversy over how to use and manage the resources on these public lands.
Most conservation biologists and ecological economists, believe that four principles should govern the use of public lands:
1. Protect biodiversity, wildlife habitats, and natural capital.
2. Do not provide government subsidies or tax breaks for using or extracting resources on public lands.
3. Require users of public lands to reimburse the American people for use of their property and the resources it contains.
4. Hold all users or extractors of resources on public lands fully responsible for any environmental damage they cause.
There is strong and effective opposition to these principles based largely on the planetary management worldview. Developers, resource extractors, many economists, and many citizens tend to view public lands in terms of their usefulness in providing mineral resources, timber, grazing land, and other resources, in the interest of short-term economic growth. They have succeeded in blocking implementation of the four principles listed above. For example, in recent years, analyses of budgets and spending reveal that the government has given an average of $1 billion a year—more than $2.7 million a day—in subsidies and tax breaks to privately owned interests that use U.S. public lands for activities such as mining, fossil fuel extraction, logging, and livestock grazing.
Some developers and resource extractors want to go further and open up federal lands for more development and resource extraction, reducing or eliminating federal regulation of these lands. Here are five proposals they have presented to Congress since 1989, based on the planetary management worldview:
1. Sell public lands or their resources to corporations or private individuals, or turn them over to state and local governments.
2. Slash federal funding for the administration of regulations related to public lands.
3. Cut diverse old-growth stands in the national forests for timber and for making biofuels, and replace them with tree plantations.
4. Open national parks, national wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas to oil and natural gas drilling, mining, off-road vehicles, and commercial development.
5. Eliminate or take regulatory control away from the National Park Service and launch a 20-year construction program in the parks to build concessions and theme parks that would be run by private firms.
Critical Thinking
1. Explain why you agree or disagree with the five proposals of developers for changing the use of U.S. public lands, listed above.
25.2aEnvironmental Literacy
There is widespread evidence and agreement that we are a species in the process of degrading our own life-support system. During this century, this behavior will very likely threaten human civilization and the existence of up to half of the world’s species. Part of the problem stems from an incomplete understanding of how the earth’s life-support system works, how our actions affect its life-sustaining systems, and how we can change our behavior toward the earth and thus toward ourselves.
Improving this understanding begins by grasping three important ideas that form the foundation of environmental literacy. First, natural capital matters because it supports the earth’s life and our economies. Second, our ecological footprints are immense and are expanding rapidly. Third, we should not exceed the earth’s ecological and climate change tipping points (
Figure 19.9
) because the resulting harmful consequences could last for hundreds to thousands of years. Accomplishing this involves stewardship, respect for nature’s limits, working together, learning from nature, and working with rather than against nature. It also means recognizing that the earth does not need us but we need the earth.
Environmental literacy involves being able to answer certain key questions and having a basic understanding of certain key topics, as summarized in
Figure 25.6
. This also involves using the principles of biomimicry (Chapter 1 Core Case Study and
Science Focus 1.1
) to understand how life has sustained itself on the earth for 3.8 billion years. Then we can apply these principles and the three scientific principles of sustainability to find out what works (
Figure 25.7
) and what lasts and how we might copy such earth wisdom.
Figure 25.6
Achieving environmental literacy involves being able to answer certain questions and having an understanding of certain key topics.
Critical Thinking:
1. After taking this course, do you feel that you can answer the questions asked here and have a basic understanding of each of the key topics listed in this figure?
Figure 25.7
By applying the solar energy principle of sustainability, scientists and engineers developed solar cells that can be used to produce electricity in this solar village in Vauban Freiburg, Germany.
Daniel Schoenen/imageBROKER/Age Fotostock
25.2bLearning from the Earth
Formal environmental education is important, but is it enough? Many analysts say no. They call for us to appreciate not only the economic value of nature (
Science Focus 10.1
), but also its ecological, aesthetic, and ethical values. To these analysts, the problem is not just a lack of environmental literacy but also a lack of intimate contact with nature and an incomplete understanding of how nature works and sustains us. This can reduce our ability to act more responsibly toward the earth and thus toward ourselves and other people.
A growing chorus of analysts suggest that we have much to learn from nature. They call for us to have a sense of awe, wonder, mystery, excitement, and humility by being in a forest, enjoying a beautiful scene in nature (
Figure 25.8
), or taking in the majesty and power of the sea. You might pick up a handful of topsoil and try to sense the teeming microscopic life within it that helps to keep us alive by supporting food production. You might look at a tree (Figure 25.2), a mountain, a rock, or a bee, or listen to the sound of a bird and try to sense how each of them is connected to you and you to them, through the earth’s life-sustaining processes.
Figure 25.8
Experiencing nature can help us to understand the need to protect the earth’s natural capital and to live more sustainably.
djgis/ Shutterstock.com
Direct experiences with nature can reveal parts of the complex web of life that cannot be bought, recreated with technology, or reproduced with genetic engineering. Understanding and directly experiencing the precious and free gifts we receive from nature can help people make an ethical commitment to live more sustainably on the earth and thus to help sustain the earth’s biodiversity for all life now and in the future.
According to some psychologists and other analysts, experiencing nature is necessary for healthy living. Journalist Richard Louv has specialized in studying relationships among family, community, and nature. He coined the term
nature-deficit disorder
to describe a wide range of problems, including anxiety, depression, and attention-deficit disorders, that can result from a lack of contact with nature. Louv argues that the problem is especially apparent among children who play mostly indoors and at best view the natural world digitally—something new in the history of humankind.
Psychologist David Strayer and other scientists have been conducting physiological and psychological research on the beneficial effects of getting away from the stress of everyday life and experiencing nature. They found that escaping the stresses of living by interacting in relaxed ways with nature can help reduce depression, anxiety, stress, blood pressure, and mental fatigue. Research indicates that, in addition to reducing stress and calming us down, connecting with nature can improve our attention skills, short-term memory, and creativity.
Urban living, along with extensive use of the internet, cell phones, and other electronic devices, contribute to nature-deficit disorder. Many environmental leaders are helping people connect directly with nature (
Individuals Matter 25.1
). When we lack an understanding of how nature keeps us alive and supports our economies, we can unknowingly degrade the earth’s natural capital and the ecosystem services it provides. Learning about and protecting natural capital is an essential component of living more sustainably.
Individuals Matter 25.1
Juan Martinez: Connecting People with Nature
REBECCA HALE/National Geographic Image Collection
National Geographic Explorer Juan Martinez learned first-hand about the value of connecting with nature. Now he is instilling that value in others, particularly disadvantaged youths.
Martinez grew up in a poor area of Los Angeles, California, where as a boy he was in danger of becoming absorbed by a gang culture. One of his teachers recognized Martinez’s potential and gave him a chance to pass a class that he was failing by joining the school’s Eco Club.
Martinez took that opportunity and when the club planned a field trip to see the Grand Teton Mountains of Wyoming, he jumped at the chance. As a result, he says, “I still can’t find words to describe the first moment I saw those mountains rising up from the valley. Watching bison, seeing a sky full of stars, and hiking through that scenery was overwhelming.”
The experience transformed Martinez’s life. Today, he spearheads the Natural Leaders Network of the Children and Nature Network, an organization creating links between environmental organizations, corporations, government, education, and individuals to reconnect children with nature. His work as an environmental leader has inspired many others to do similar work.
Martinez has received a great deal of recognition for his efforts, including invitations to White House forums on environmental education. His greatest reward, however, is in seeing how his efforts help others.
Earth-focused philosophers say that to be rooted, each of us needs to find a sense of place—a stream, a mountain, a patch of forest, a yard, a neighborhood lot—any piece of the natural world that we know, experience emotionally, and love. According to biologist Stephen Gould, “We will not fight to save what we do not love.” When we become part of a place, it becomes a part of us. Then we might be driven to defend it from harm (
Figure 25.9
) and to help heal its wounds. We might discover and tap into what conservationist Aldo Leopold (
Individuals Matter 25.2
) called “the green fire that burns in our hearts” and use this as a force for respecting and working with the earth and with one another.
Figure 25.9
This woman and others in Vancouver, Canada, are protesting the clear-cutting of old-growth forests for timber in the Canadian province of British Columbia.
Joel W. Rogers/Corbis
Individuals Matter 25.2
Aldo Leopold
Courtesy of the Aldo Leopold Foundation, www.aldoleopold.org
According to the American forester, ecologist, and writer Aldo Leopold (1887–1948), the role of the human species should be to protect nature, not to conquer it. His book, A Sand County Almanac (published in 1949 after his death), is an environmental classic that has helped inspire the modern environmental and conservation movements.
In 1933, Leopold became a professor at the University of Wisconsin, and in 1935, he helped to found the Wilderness Society. Through his writings and teachings, he became one of the foremost leaders of the conservation and environmental movements during the 20th century. His energy and foresight helped to lay the critical groundwork for the field of environmental ethics. The following quotations from his writings reflect Leopold’s land ethic, and they form the basis for many of the beliefs and principles of the modern stewardship and environmental wisdom worldviews:
All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts.
To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.
That land is a community is the basic concept of ecology, but that land is to be loved and respected is an extension of ethics.
The land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it.
We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us.
When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.
A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.
25.3aLiving More Simply and Lightly on the Earth
On a timescale of hundreds of thousands to millions of years, the earth is resilient and has survived many wounds. Mostly because of human actions, we are living on a planet with a warmer and sometimes harsher climate, less dependable supplies of water, more acidic oceans, extensive soil degradation, higher rates of extinction of species, degradation of key ecosystem services, and widespread ecological disruption. Unless we change our course, scientists warn that these and other harmful environmental changes will intensify.
Figure 25.1
0 lists 12 guidelines—the “sustainability dozen”—developed by environmental scientists and ethicists for living more sustainably by converting environmental concerns, literacy, and lessons from the earth into environmentally responsible actions for current and future generations. Significant scientific and other evidence indicates that human activities are degrading the earth’s life-support system at an increasing rate. Reversing this path to unsustainability means creating a society that lives within the earth’s ecological limits. In doing this, time is our scarcest resource.
Figure 25.10
Sustainability dozen: Guidelines for living more sustainably.
Some analysts urge people who have a habit of consuming excessively to live more simply and sustainably. Seeking happiness through the pursuit of material things is considered folly by almost every major religion and philosophy. Yet, today’s avalanche of advertising messages encourages people to buy more and more things to fill a growing list of wants as a way to achieve happiness. As American humorist and writer Mark Twain (1835–1910) observed: “Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities.” American comedian George Carlin (1937–2008) put it another way: “A house is just a pile of stuff with a cover on it. It is a place to keep your stuff while you go out and get more stuff.”
However, to others, the more stuff we possess, the more we are possessed by stuff. According to research by psychologists, what a growing number of people really want, deep down, is more community, not more stuff. They want greater and more fulfilling interactions with family, friends, and neighbors. Some people are adopting a lifestyle of voluntary simplicity. It should not be confused with poverty, which is involuntary simplicity. Voluntary simplicity involves learning to live with less stuff, using products and services that have smaller harmful environmental impacts, and creating beneficial environmental impacts. These individuals view voluntary simplicity not as a sacrifice but as a way to have a more fulfilling and satisfying life. Instead of working longer to pay for bigger vehicles and houses, they are spending more time with their loved ones, friends, and nature. Their goals are to consume less, share more, live simply, make friends, treasure family, and enjoy life. Their motto is: “Consume less. Shop less. Live more.”
Practicing voluntary simplicity is a way to apply the Indian philosopher and leader Mahatma Gandhi’s principle of enoughness: “The earth provides enough to satisfy every person’s need but not every person’s greed. . . . When we take more than we need, we are simply taking from each other, borrowing from the future, or destroying the environment and other species.” Most of the world’s major religions have similar teachings.
Living more simply and sustainably starts with asking the question: How much is enough? Similarly, one can ask: What do I really need? These are not easy questions to answer, because people in affluent societies are conditioned to want more and more material possessions and to view them as needs instead of wants. As a result, many people have become addicted to buying more and more stuff as a way to find meaning in their lives, and they often run up large personal debts to feed their stuff habit.
Figure 25.11
lists five steps that some psychologists have advised people to take to help them withdraw from this addiction.
Figure 25.11
Five ways to withdraw from an addiction to buying more and more stuff.
Critical Thinking
1. Make a list of your basic needs. Is your list of needs compatible with your environmental worldview?
Throughout this text, you have encountered lists of ways we can live more lightly on the earth by reducing the size and impact of our ecological footprints.
Figure 25.12
lists eight key ways in which some people are choosing to live more simply and sustainably.
Figure 25.12
Living more lightly: Eight ways to shrink our ecological footprints.
Critical Thinking
1. Which three of the eight steps in Figure 25.12 do you think are the most important? Which of these things do you already do? Which of them are you thinking about doing? How do your answers to these questions relate to
1. the six principles of sustainability, and
2. to your environmental worldview?
Living more sustainably is not easy, and we will not make this transition by relying primarily on technological fixes such as recycling, changing to energy-efficient light bulbs, and driving energy-efficient cars. These are, of course, important things to do. They can help us to shrink our ecological footprints and to feel less guilty about our harmful impacts on our life-support system. However, these efforts cannot solve the environmental problems resulting from excessive consumption of and unnecessary waste of matter and energy resources (see Case Study that follows).
Some analysts have suggested that the environmental movement has focused too much on bad news and laying blame, which has then led people to feel guilty, fearful, apathetic, and powerless. They suggest that we can move beyond these immobilizing feelings by recognizing and avoiding the following three common mental traps that lead to denial, indifference, and inaction:
· Gloom-and-doom pessimism (it is hopeless)
· Blind technological optimism (science and technological fixes will save us)
· Hoping we can move to another planet (see
Science Focus 25.1
)
Avoiding these three traps helps us to be inspired by empowering feelings of realistic hope and action, rather than to be immobilized by feelings of despair and fear.
Critical Thinking
1. Have you fallen into any of these traps? If so, are you aware that you have, and how do you think you could free yourself from either of them?
Science Focus 25.1
Biosphere 3: Can We Move to Mars?
Some people suggest that if the earth is too crowded and polluted, we can move to another planet such as Mars (
Figure 25.A
). The atmosphere on Mars is about 95% and has no oxygen, compared to the earth’s atmosphere which is 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen .
Figure 25.A
Mars: the red planet.
Nerthuz/ Shutterstock.com
This means that people migrating to Mars would have to live inside of a sealed structure with a system to produce . They would need a spacesuit with an oxygen tank to go outside. There are no green plants or animals that could serve as food.
Being outside would expose them to harmful levels of UV radiation from the sun and Mars’s atmosphere prevents liquid water from existing on its surface. Thus, moving to Mars would mean living inside a sealed structure and depending on technological systems for oxygen, water, food, and waste handling.
The average distance from Earth to Mars is 225 million kilometers (140 million miles). Making this trip on today’s fastest spacecraft would take about 300 days or 10 months. During this time, travelers would be confined within a spacecraft. There too, they would be dependent on machines to provide their food, water, oxygen and waste handling.
Elon Musk estimates that getting 12 people to Mars to build a colony would cost $10 billion a person. He thinks he might be able to get it down to around $200,000 a person to get there and another $200,000 to return to the earth, if Mars does not work out.
Sending a few people to learn about Mars makes sense. However, there is no Biosphere 3 to move to because Mars has no life-sustaining biosphere. Instead, critics warn that thinking that we can migrate to Mars to escape the harmful environmental conditions on the earth is an expensive trap. Instead, they call for us to make the earth–our only planetary home–a more sustainable place to live. In other words, there is no ‘planet B’ for us to go to.
Critical Thinking
1. Would you want to move to Mars? Why or why not?
Case Study
The United States, China, and Sustainability
We are living unsustainably. According to the Global Footprint Network, we would need 1.5 planet Earths to sustain indefinitely the resources that the world’s 7.6 billion people consumed in 2018. By 2050, there will be about 9.9 billion people and we would need 3 planet Earths to sustain indefinitely their projected use of resources.
This helps explain why the greatest challenge we face is to learn how to live more sustainably during the next few decades. Meeting this challenge depends largely on the decisions and actions of the United States and China—the two countries that lead the world in resource consumption and production of wastes and pollutants.
The United States has the world’s third largest population and the highest population growth rate of any industrialized country. It also has one of the world’s largest per capita ecological footprints (
Figure 25.12, bottom)—mostly because of high resource use per person. If everyone in the world used resources equal to what the average American uses, we would need about five planet Earths to support them, according to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Global Footprint Network. China has the world’s largest population and total ecological footprint (
Figure 25.13
, top). However, it has a much lower ecological footprint per person than the United States has because of its much lower rate of use of resources per person (Figure 25.13, bottom).
Figure 25.13
Comparison of total and per capital ecological footprints of the United States and China.
(Compiled by the authors using data from the Global Footprint Network 2018 and World Atlas 2017)
Since the 1960s, China has cut its birth rate in half and its population is growing at a rate slower than that of the United States. However, if its middle class continues to grow and consume more resources as projected, China could have the world’s largest per capita footprint within a decade or two.
Because of their economic power and high and growing levels of resource use, the United States and China will play the key roles in determining whether and how we can live more sustainably on the planet that keeps us alive and supports the world’s economies.
In the 1970s, the United States led the world in developing laws and regulations designed to improve environmental quality. However, since 1980 the U.S. environmental community has had to spend most of its time fending off attempts to weaken or repeal the country’s major environmental laws—many of which need updating.
At the federal level, many members of the U.S. Congress think that climate change is a hoax or that it is not caused by human actions and want to weaken or overturn environmental laws and regulations, reduce funding for climate research, and get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency. Thus, the country that led the world into concern for the environment is now reducing its global environmental leadership. Under pressure from coal, oil, and utility companies, certain legislators have blocked efforts to reduce fossil fuel use (especially coal), use a carbon tax or a carbon-trading system to reduce emissions, shift to greater dependence on renewable energy from the sun and wind, and build a modern smart electrical grid to make this shift possible.
China’s leaders have plans to become more environmentally responsible over the next few decades for two reasons. One is to maintain their political power by heading off growing citizen unrest over the country’s severe pollution, as the U.S. government did in the 1970s. The other is to dominate the world’s rapidly growing and profitable green energy and low-carbon businesses. If successful, China could become the world’s leader in making the shift to more sustainable economies and societies and reduce its total environmental footprint.
China produces and sells more wind turbines and solar cell panels than any country in the world and is building a smart electrical grid to distribute electricity produced by the sun and wind throughout the country. It has also developed a growing network of bullet trains that can help reduce car use.
Over the next few decades, the Chinese government plans to depend more on cleaner energy systems and become the global leader in developing a low-carbon economy. It has plans to tax carbon pollution from the burning of fossil fuels and to use the income to shift away from fossil fuel use before the United States does. The goal is to make money by becoming the global leader in making the shift to the new energy transition (
Section 16.1
). However, China burns coal to provide 65% of its electricity and reducing its dependence on abundant and cheap coal is a major economic and political challenge.
The United States and China face similar problems. They have large reserves of coal that can be burned to produce electricity at a low cost, as long as the price of such electricity does not include the harmful environmental effects of burning coal. According to critics, global efforts to reduce air pollution, slow climate change, and rely more on renewable energy from the sun and wind depend heavily on whether China and the United States decide to leave much of their coal reserves in the ground. This is a difficult economic, political, and ethical decision.
25.3bBringing About a Sustainability Revolution in Your Lifetime
The Industrial Revolution, which began around the mid-18th century, was a remarkable global transformation. Now in this century, environmental leaders say it is time for another global transformation—a sustainability revolution.
Figure 25.14
lists some of the major cultural shifts in emphasis that could help bring about a sustainability revolution in your lifetime.
Figure 25.14
Solutions: Some of the cultural shifts in emphasis that scientists say will be necessary to bring about a sustainability revolution.
Critical Thinking:
1. Which of these shifts do you think are most important? Why?
The sustainability movement is a decentralized global movement arising mostly from the bottom up, based on the actions of a variety of individuals and groups throughout the world. One of the leaders in the movement to develop and promote detailed plans for making the shift to more sustainable ways of living is Lester R. Brown (
Individuals Matter 25.3
).
Individuals Matter 25.3
Lester R. Brown: Champion of Sustainability
KFEM/Earth Policy Institute
Lester R. Brown served as president of the Earth Policy Institute, which he founded in 2001 until his retirement in 2015. The purpose of this nonprofit, interdisciplinary research organization has been to provide a plan for a more sustainable future and a roadmap showing how we could get there.
Brown is an interdisciplinary thinker and one of the pioneers of the global sustainability movement. For decades, he has been researching and describing the complex and interconnected environmental issues we face and proposing concrete strategies for dealing with them. The Washington Post called him “one of the world’s most influential thinkers,” and Foreign Policy named him one of the Top Global Thinkers.
Brown’s Plan B for shifting to a more environmentally and economically sustainable future has four main goals:
1. stabilize population growth,
2. stabilize climate change,
3. eradicate poverty, and
4. restore the earth’s natural support systems.
Brown has written or coauthored more than 50 books, which have been translated into more than 40 languages. He has received numerous prizes and awards, including 25 honorary degrees, the United Nations Environment Prize, and Japan’s Blue Planet Prize. In 2012, he was inducted into the Earth Hall of Fame in Kyoto, Japan. He also holds three honorary professorships in China.
Despite the serious environmental challenges we face, Brown sees reasons for hope. They include his understanding that social change can sometimes occur very quickly. He is also encouraged by improvements in fuel efficiency, the emerging shift from using coal to using solar and wind energy to produce electricity, and a growing public understanding of our need to live more sustainably.
A growing number of people call for us to change the way we treat the earth and thus ourselves by living more gently on the planet that sustains us.
Figure 25.15
lists a number of agents of change that can help us shift to a more sustainable path within your lifetime. These seedlings of change, which have been discussed in this book, can break out of their position of slow growth on the bottom of the curve of change in Figure 25.15 and round the bend on the J-curve of rapid exponential growth toward more sustainable living. Supporting and encouraging these agents of change can help us to make the shift to a more sustainable path much faster than you might think.
Figure 25.15
Seedlings of environmental change and hope. The agents of change in this figure are growing slowly. However, at some point, some or all of them could take off, grow exponentially, and help bring about a sustainability revolution within your lifetime.
Critical Thinking:
1. Which two items in each of these four categories do you believe are the most important to promote?
NASA
Here are two pieces of good news about the possibility of bringing about a sustainability revolution over the next few decades. First, social science research reveals that for a major social change to occur, only 5–10% of the people in the world or in a country or locality must become convinced that the change must take place and then act to bring about such change. Second, history also shows that we can bring about change faster than we might think, once we have the courage to leave behind ideas and practices that no longer work and to nurture new trends such as the rapidly growing seedlings of sustainability listed in Figure 25.15.
We have the knowledge to shift from our current unsustainable path to a more sustainable one. Within this century, a small but dedicated group of people from around the world can bring about a sustainability revolution. They will likely understand three things. First, we have been borrowing from the earth and the future and our debt is coming due. Second, as a species we are capable of great things, if we choose to act. Third, once we start on a new path, change can spread through our web-connected global social networks at an amazing pace.
While some skeptics say the idea of a sustainability revolution is idealistic and unrealistic, entrepreneur Paul Hawken, in a graduation address, observed that “the most unrealistic person in the world is the cynic, not the dreamer.” In addition, according to the late Steve Jobs, cofounder of Apple Inc., “The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do.” If these and other individuals had not had the courage to forge ahead with ideas that others called idealistic and unrealistic, very few of the human and environmental achievements that we now celebrate would have happened. Can we shift to a more sustainable world? Yes—if enough people act to make it happen. Join them.
The key to a sustainability revolution is that individuals matter. Each of our choices and actions makes a difference, we are all in this together, and the situation is not hopeless. We can work together to become the generation that avoids environmental chaos and leaves the earth—our only home—in better shape than it is now. It is an exciting and challenging time to be alive.
Big Ideas
· Our environmental worldviews play a key role in how we treat the earth that sustains us and thus in how we treat ourselves.
· We need to become more environmentally literate about how the earth works, how we are affecting its life-support systems that keep us and other species alive, and what we can do to live more sustainably.
· Living more sustainably means learning from nature, living more lightly, and becoming active environmental citizens who leave small environmental footprints on the earth.
· Tying It All TogetherBiosphere 2: A Lesson in Humility
· Biosphere 2 (
Figure 25.1) was designed to be a self-sustaining life-support system like Biosphere 1—the earth. Instead, numerous unexpected problems occurred. As a result, Biosphere 2 was not able to support eight people for 2 years.
·
·
Joseph Sohm/ Shutterstock.com
· The lesson from this $200 million project is that we do not know how to design a system that can provide even 8 people with the life-supporting services that the earth provides for 7.6 billion people at no cost.
· In this chapter, we discussed the role of human-centered, life-centered, and earth-centered environmental worldviews. We also discussed the controversies over whether we can manage the earth, how we should manage public lands in the United States, the components of environmental literacy, and how we can learn from the earth about how to live more sustainably. In this chapter, and throughout this book, we have argued that we can best do this by applying the six principles of sustainability on individual, community, national, and global levels.
Chapter Review
Critical Thinking
1. Some analysts argue that the problems with Biosphere 2 resulted mostly from inadequate design, and that a better team of scientists and engineers could make it work. Explain why you agree or disagree with this view.
2. Do you believe that we have an ethical responsibility to leave the earth’s life-support systems in a condition that is as good as or better than it is now? Why or why not? List three aspects of your lifestyle that hinder the implementation of this ideal and three aspects that promote this ideal.
3. This chapter summarized several different environmental worldviews. Go through these worldviews and find the beliefs you agree with and then describe your own environmental worldview. Which of your beliefs, if any, were added or modified because of taking this course? Compare your answer with those of your classmates.
4. Explain why you agree or disagree with the following statements:
1. everyone has the right to have as many children as they want;
2. all people have a right to use as many resources as they want;
3. individuals should have the right to do whatever they want with land they own, regardless of whether such actions harm the environment, their neighbors, or the local community;
4. other species exist to be used by humans; and
5. all forms of life have a right to exist.
Are your answers consistent with the beliefs that make up your environmental worldview, which you described in question 4?
5. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Explain your answers:
1. environmental protection is bad for the economy;
2. the key to our success is controlling nature to meet our needs and wants;
3. all economic growth is good;
4. technology can solve our environmental problems; and
5. individual actions don’t count.
6.
The American theologian, Thomas Berry, called the industrial–consumer society, built on the human-centered, planetary management environmental worldview, the “supreme pathology of all history.” He said, “We can break the mountains apart; we can drain the rivers and flood the valleys. We can turn the most luxuriant forests into throwaway paper products. We can tear apart the great grass cover of the western plains, and pour toxic chemicals into the soil and pesticides onto the fields, until the soil is dead and blows away in the wind. We can pollute the air with acids, the rivers with sewage, and the seas with oil. We can invent computers capable of processing 10 million calculations per second. And why? To increase the volume and speed with which we move natural resources through the consumer economy to the junk pile or the waste heap. If, in these activities, the topography of the planet is damaged, if the environment is made inhospitable for a multitude of living species, then so be it. We are, supposedly, creating a technological wonderworld. But our supposed progress is bringing us to a wasteworld instead of a wonderworld.” Explain why you agree or disagree with this assessment. If you disagree, answer at least five of Berry’s charges with your own arguments as to why you think he is wrong. If you agree, cite evidence as to why.
7. Some analysts believe that trying to gain environmental wisdom by becoming familiar with some part of the natural world and forming an emotional bond with its life forms and processes is unscientific, mystical nonsense based on a romanticized view of nature. They believe that having a better scientific understanding of how the earth works and inventing or improving technologies to solve environmental problems are the best ways to achieve sustainability. Do you agree or disagree? Why or Why Not?
8. Do you think we have a reasonable chance of bringing about a sustainability revolution within your lifetime? Why or why not? If you are nearing the end of this course, is your view of the future more hopeful or less hopeful than it was when you began this course? Compare your answers with those of your classmates.
Chapter Review
Doing Environmental Science
1. Increase your environmental knowledge and awareness of nature by tracing the water you drink from precipitation to tap; finding out what type of soil is beneath your feet; naming five plants and five birds that live in the natural environment around you; finding out what species in your area are threatened with extinction; learning where your trash goes; and learning where the wastes you flush down the toilet go. Write a report summarizing your findings. Of your findings, which two were the most surprising to you and why? Compare your answer to this question with those of your classmates.
Chapter Review
Ecological Footprint Analysis
1. Working with classmates, conduct an ecological footprint analysis of your campus. Work with a partner, or in small groups, to research and investigate an aspect of your school such as recycling or composting; water use; food service practices; energy use; building management and energy conservation; transportation for both on- and off-campus trips; or grounds maintenance. Depending on your school and its location, you may want to add more areas to the investigation. You can also decide to study the campus as a whole, or to break it down into smaller research areas, such as dorms, administrative buildings, classroom buildings, grounds, and other areas.
1. After deciding on your group’s research area, conduct your analysis. As part of your analysis, develop a list of questions that will help to determine the ecological impact related to your chosen topic. For example, with regard to water use, you might ask how much water is used, what is the estimated amount that is wasted through leaking pipes and faucets, and what is the average monthly water bill for the school, among other questions. Use such questions as a basis for your research.
2. Analyze your results and share them with the class to determine what can be done to shrink the ecological footprint of your school within the area you have chosen.
3. Arrange a meeting with school officials to share your action plan with them.
Chapter25
·
·
Chapter Introduction
·
Core Case Study
Biosphere 2
—
A Lesson in Humility
·
25.1
Environmental Worldviews
·
25.1a
Differing Environmental Worldviews
·
25.1b
Human
–
Centered Environmental Worldviews
·
25.1c
Can We Manage the Earth?
·
25.1d
Life
–
Centered and Earth
–
Centered Environmental Worl
dviews
·
25.2
Role Of Education
·
25.2a
Environmental Literacy
·
25.2b
Learning from the Earth
·
25.3
Living More Sustainably
·
25.3a
Living More Simply and Lightly on the Earth
·
25.3b
Bringing About a Sustainability Revolution in Your Lifetime
·
Tying It All Together
Biosphere 2: A Lesson in Humility
·
Chapter Review
·
Critical Thinking
·
Doing Environmental Science
·
Ecological Footprint Analysis
·
25.1a
Differing
Environmental
Worldviews
·
People disagree on how serious our environmental problems are, as well as
on what we should do about them. One reason for these disagreements is
that people have different environmental worldviews. Your
environmental
worl
dview
is the assumptions and beliefs that you have about how the
natural world works and how you think you should interact with the
environment. It is determined partly by your
environmental ethics
—
what
Chapter25
Chapter Introduction
Core Case StudyBiosphere 2—A Lesson in Humility
25.1Environmental Worldviews
25.1aDiffering Environmental Worldviews
25.1bHuman-Centered Environmental Worldviews
25.1cCan We Manage the Earth?
25.1dLife-Centered and Earth-Centered Environmental Worldviews
25.2Role Of Education
25.2aEnvironmental Literacy
25.2bLearning from the Earth
25.3Living More Sustainably
25.3aLiving More Simply and Lightly on the Earth
25.3bBringing About a Sustainability Revolution in Your Lifetime
Tying It All TogetherBiosphere 2: A Lesson in Humility
Chapter Review
Critical Thinking
Doing Environmental Science
Ecological Footprint Analysis
25.1aDiffering
Environmental
Worldviews
People disagree on how serious our environmental problems are, as well as
on what we should do about them. One reason for these disagreements is
that people have different environmental worldviews. Your environmental
worldview is the assumptions and beliefs that you have about how the
natural world works and how you think you should interact with the
environment. It is determined partly by your environmental ethics—what
15
–
Chapter Introduction
Core Case Study
Using Hydrofracking to Produce
Oil
and
Natural Gas
15.1
Energy Resources
15.1a
Where Does the Energy We Use Come From?
15.1b
Net Energy: It Takes Energy to Get Energy
15.1c
Some
Energy Resources
Need
Subsidies
15.2
Oil
15.2a
We Depend Heavily On Oil
15.2b
Are We Running Out of Crude Oil?
15.2c
Environmental Impact of Heavy Oil
15.3
Natural Gas
15.3a
What Is Natural Gas?
15.3b
Natural Gas
and Climate
15.4
Coal
15.4a
Coal: A Plentiful but Dirty Fuel
15.4b
The Full Cost of Using Coal
15.4c
The Future of Coal
15.4d
Converting
Coal
into Gaseous and Liquid Fuels
15.5
Nuclear Power
15.5a
How Does a Nuclear Fission Reactor Work?
15.5b
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle
15.5c
Radioactive Nuclear Wastes
15.5d
Nuclear Power and Climate Change
15.5e
Nuclear Power’s Uncertain Future
15.5f
Nuclear Fusion
Tying It All Together
Fracking, Nonrenewable Energy, and Sustainability
Chapter Review
Critical Thinking
Doing Environmental Science
Data Analysis15.1aWhere Does the Energy We Use Come From?
Some 99% of the energy that heats the earth and makes it livable comes from the sun—in keeping with the solar energy principle of sustainability. Without this free and essentially inexhaustible input of solar energy, the earth’s average temperature would be and life as we know it would not exist.
To supplement the sun’s life-sustaining energy, we use commercial energy—energy produced from a variety of nonrenewable and renewable resources and sold in the marketplace. Nonrenewable energy resources, include
fossil fuels
(oil, natural gas, coal) formed from the remains of plants and animals that lived long ago and in the nuclei of certain atoms (nuclear energy). We discuss these resources in this chapter. Renewable energy resources that are replenished by natural processes include energy from the sun, wind, flowing water (hydropower), biomass (energy stored in plants), and heat in the earth’s interior (geothermal energy). They are discussed in
Chapter 16
.
85%
Percentage of the world’s commercial energy that comes from nonrenewable energy (mostly fossil fuels)
In 2017, 85% of the world’s commercial energy and 80% of U.S. commercial energy came from nonrenewable resources (mostly oil, natural gas, and coal), while the rest came from renewable resources (
Figure 15.2
)
Figure 15.2
Energy use by source throughout the world (left) and in the United States (right) in 2017.
(Compiled by the authors using data from British Petroleum, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), and International Energy Agency (IEA)
15.1bNet Energy: It Takes Energy to Get Energy
Producing high-quality energy from any energy resource requires an input of high-quality energy. For example, before oil can be used, it must be located, pumped from beneath the ground or ocean floor, transferred to a refinery, converted to gasoline and other fuels, and delivered to consumers. Each of these steps uses high-quality energy, obtained mostly by burning fossil fuels, especially gasoline and diesel fuel produced from oil. Because of the second law of thermodynamics (
Chapter 2
), some of the high-quality energy used in each step is degraded to lower quality energy that typically flows into the environment as heat.
Net energy
is the amount of high-quality energy available from a given quantity of an energy resource, minus the high-quality energy needed to make the energy available.
This information can also be expressed as a
net energy ratio (NER)
, also known as the energy returned on investment (EROI).
Suppose that it takes about 9 units of high-quality energy to produce 10 units of high-quality energy from an energy resource. Then the net energy is 1 unit of energy and the net energy ratio is , both low values. Net energy is like the net profit earned by a business after expenses are deducted. If a business has $1 million in sales and $900,000 in expenses, its net profit is $100,000.
Net energy values are rough estimates depending on the items included and the availability of data. For this reason,
Figure 15.3
shows generalized net energies for major energy resources and systems. It is based on several sources of scientific data and classifies estimated net energy as high, medium, low, or negative (negative being a net energy loss).
Figure 15.3
Generalized net energies for various energy resources and systems.
Critical Thinking:
1. Based only on these data, which two resources in each category will give the greatest return on the investment?
(Compiled by the authors using data from the U.S. Department of Energy; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Colorado Energy Research Institute, Net Energy Analysis, 1976; Howard T. Odum and Elisabeth C. Odum, Energy Basis for Man and Nature, 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981, and Charles A. S. Hall and Kent A. Klitgaard, Energy and the Wealth of Nations, New York: Springer, 2012.) Top left: racorn/ Shutterstock.com. Bottom left: Donald Aitken/National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Top right: Serdar Tibet/ Shutterstock.com. Bottom right: Michel Stevelmans/ Shutterstock.com.
15.1c
Some Energy Resources Need Subsidies
Resources with low net energies are costly to bring to the market. This makes it difficult for such energy resources to compete in the marketplace against energy resources with higher net energies unless they receive subsidies and tax breaks from the government (taxpayers) or other outside sources.
For example, electricity produced by nuclear power has a low net energy. This is because large amounts of high-quality energy are needed for each step in the nuclear power fuel cycle: to extract and process uranium ore, upgrade it to nuclear fuel, build and operate nuclear power plants, dismantle each radioactive nuclear plant after its useful life (typically 40-60 years) and safely store for thousands of years the highly radioactive wastes created in operating and dismantling each plant.
The low net energy and the resulting high cost of the entire nuclear fuel cycle (discussed later in this chapter) is one reason why governments (taxpayers) throughout the world heavily subsidize nuclear-generated electricity to make it available to consumers at an affordable price. However, such subsidies hide the true costs of nuclear power and thus violate the full-cost pricing principle of sustainability.
Another factor that can affect the usefulness of an energy resource is its
energy density
, the amount of energy available per kilogram of the resource. The two energy resources with the highest densities are uranium-235 fuel, used to produce electricity in nuclear power plants, and compressed hydrogen gas , which when burned does not emit climate-changing gases or other air pollutants. However, energy density can be misleading because it does not take into account the high-quality energy needed to make the energy resource available for use. For example, the entire nuclear power process of using uranium-235 to produce electricity has a low net energy as described above, and producing hydrogen gas results in a net energy loss.
17.4fImplementing Pollution Prevention
Pollution prevention programs by 3M and other companies are leading the way but there are major challenges in applying the precautionary principle more widely in the United States. A key to pollution prevention is banning the use of harmful chemicals or regulating their use.
At U.S. Congressional hearings in 2009, experts testified that the current regulatory system in the United States makes it virtually impossible for the government to limit or ban the use of toxic chemicals. Under this system, by 2009 the EPA has required testing for only 200 of the more than 85,000 chemicals registered for use in the United States and had issued regulations to control fewer than 12 of those chemicals.
However, there has been some progress. In 2011, after a 35-year delay promoted by politically powerful coal companies and utilities that burn coal to produce electricity, the EPA took a step toward pollution prevention by issuing a rule to control emissions of mercury (
Core Case Study
) and harmful fine-particle pollution from older coal-burning plants in 28 states.
Many eastern states suffer from deposition of mercury and harmful particles produced by older coal-burning power and electric plants in the Midwest and blown eastward by prevailing winds (
Figure 17.20
). The new proposed air pollution standards could prevent as many as 11,000 premature deaths, 200,000 non-fatal heart attacks, and 2.5 million asthma attacks, according to the EPA. In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld these new EPA regulations but there have been growing efforts in Congress and pressure from coal companies to roll back or eliminate this standard.
Figure 17.20
Atmospheric wet deposition of mercury in the lower 48 states in 2010. Since then some progress has been made in reducing mercury levels in the eastern half of the 48 states.
Critical Thinking:
1. Why do the highest levels occur mainly in the eastern half of the United States?
(Compiled by the authors using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Atmospheric Deposition Program)
In 2018, under pressure from coal industry the head of the EPA, who for 10 years served as the top attorney for the chief executive of a major coal company, was reviewing the 2011 and 2015 mercury air pollution standards, which the American Lung Association estimated would prevent 11,000 premature deaths per year and has dramatically reduced mercury pollution. The EPA head hoped to see how the standards could be greatly weakened, along with other air and water pollution standards for potentially toxic chemicals, because of the high costs to the coal industry. The goal is to set lower, more coal industry-friendly standards and possibly set the stage for full repeal of the EPA mercury standards.
Pollution prevention is happening on an international scale. The Stockholm Convention of 2000 is an international agreement to ban or phase out the use of 12 of the most notorious persistent organic pollutants (POPs), also called the dirty dozen. These highly toxic chemicals have been shown to produce numerous harmful effects, including cancers, birth defects, compromised immune systems, and declining sperm counts and sperm quality in men in a number of countries. The list includes DDT and eight other pesticides, PCBs, and dioxins. In 2009, nine more POPs were added, some of which are widely used in pesticides and in flame-retardants added to clothing, furniture, and other consumer goods. The treaty went into effect in 2004 but has not been formally approved or implemented by the United States.
Representatives from many nations developed a United Nations treaty known as the Minamata Convention which seeks to curb most human-related inputs of mercury into the environment (
Core Case Study
). The overall goal is to reduce global mercury emissions by 15% to 35% in the next several decades. In August 2017, the treaty went into effect after 50 countries (including the United States) had ratified or signed it. The treaty requires countries to implement the best-available mercury emission-control technologies within five years. It also restricts the use of mercury in common household products, thermometers and other measuring devices, light bulbs, batteries, and some cosmetics. However, there are no penalties for not meeting these requirements.
17.5aThe Greatest Health Risks Come from Poverty, Gender, and Lifestyle Choices
Risk analysis
involves identifying hazards and evaluating their associated risks (risk assessment;
Figure 17.2
, left), ranking risks (comparative risk analysis), determining options and making decisions about reducing or eliminating risks (risk management;
Figure 17.2
, right), and informing decision makers and the public about risks (risk communication).
Statistical probabilities based on experience, animal testing, and other assessments are used to estimate risks from older technologies and chemicals. To evaluate new technologies and products, risk evaluators use more uncertain statistical probabilities, based on models rather than on actual experience and testing.
In terms of the number of deaths per year (
Figure 17.21
, left), the greatest risk by far is poverty, followed by air pollution and tobacco use. Many deaths due to poverty are caused by malnutrition, increased susceptibility to normally nonfatal infectious diseases, and often-fatal infectious diseases transmitted by unsafe drinking water.
Figure 17.21
Estimated numbers of deaths per year in the world from various causes. Numbers in parentheses represent these death tolls in terms of numbers of fully loaded 200-passenger jet airplanes crashing every day of the year with no survivors.
Critical Thinking:
1. Which three of these causes are the most threatening to you?
(Compiled by the authors using data from the World Health Organization, Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
Studies show that the four greatest risks in terms of shortened life spans are living in poverty, being born male, smoking (see the
Case Study
that follows), and being obese. Some of the greatest risks of premature death are illnesses that result primarily from lifestyle choices that people make (
Figure 17.22
).
Figure 17.22
Leading causes of death in the United States. Some result from lifestyle choices and are preventable.
Data Analysis:
1. The number of deaths from tobacco use is how many times the number of deaths from alcohol?
(Compiled by the authors using data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)
Case Study
Cigarettes and E-Cigarettes
Cigarette smoking is the world’s most preventable and largest cause of premature death among adults. The WHO estimates that smoking contributed to the deaths of 100 million people during the 20th century and could kill 1 billion people during this century unless governments and individuals act to dramatically reduce smoking.
The WHO and a report by the U.S. Surgeon General estimated that each year, globally tobacco contributes to the premature deaths of about 6 million people resulting from 25 illnesses, including heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, lung and other cancers, memory impairment, bronchitis, and emphysema (
Figure 17.23
). This amounts to an average of more than 16,400 deaths every day.
Figure 17.23
The difference between normal human lungs (left) and the lungs of a person who died of emphysema (right). The major causes of emphysema are prolonged smoking and exposure to air pollutants.
Arthur Glauberman/Science Source
In a study led by Rachel A. Whitmer, researchers tracked the health of 21,123 individuals for 30 years. They found that people between the ages of 50 and 60 who had smoked one to two packs of cigarettes daily had a 44% higher chance of getting Alzheimer’s disease or vascular dementia (which reduces blood flow to the brain and can erode memory) by age 72.
The projected annual death toll by 2030 from smoking-related diseases is 8 million—an average of 21,900 preventable deaths per day—according to the CDC and the WHO. About 80% of these deaths are expected to occur in less-developed countries, especially China, with 350 million smokers. The annual death toll from smoking in China is about 1.2 million, an average of about 137 deaths every hour. By 2050, the annual death toll from smoking in China could reach 3 million. There is little effort to reduce smoking in China, partly because cigarette taxes provide up to 10% of the central government’s total annual revenues. A study by Zhengming Chen and a team of other researchers, projected that smoking could lead to 3 million deaths per year in China by 2050.
According to the CDC, smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, killing about 492,000 Americans per year—an average of 1,348 deaths per day, or nearly one every minute (
Figure 17.22
). This death toll is roughly equivalent to almost 7 fully loaded 200-passenger jet planes crashing every day of the year with no survivors. Smoking kills far more Americans each year than car crashes, alcohol, legal and illegal drugs, suicides, and murders combined. Smoking also causes about 8.6 million illnesses every year in the United States. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the nicotine inhaled in tobacco smoke or in e-cigarettes is highly addictive, with the addictive power of heroin and cocaine. A British government study showed that adolescents who smoke more than one cigarette have an 85% chance of becoming long-term smokers.
Studies indicate that cigarette smokers die, on average, 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, but that kicking the habit—even at 50 years of age—can cut such a risk in half. If people quit smoking by age 30, they can avoid nearly all the risk of dying prematurely. However, it is difficult for smokers to quit because of the strong addictive power of nicotine.
Secondhand smoke—smoke inhaled by people living with or working around smokers—is also a hazard. Children who grow up living with smokers are more likely to develop allergies and asthma. Among adults, nonsmoking spouses of smokers have a 30% higher risk of both heart attack and lung cancer than spouses of nonsmokers have. A study by British researchers found that, globally, exposure to secondhand smoke contributes to about 600,000 deaths per year. According to the CDC, daily exposure to secondhand smoke is responsible for nearly 42,000 deaths per year in the United States.
In the United States, the percentage of adults who smoke dropped from 42% in 1965 to 14% in 2017, and the goal is to reduce this to less than 10% by 2025, according to the CDC. This decline can be attributed to media coverage about the harmful health effects of smoking, sharp increases in cigarette taxes in many states, mandatory health warnings on cigarette packs, the ban on sales to minors, and bans on smoking in workplaces, bars, restaurants, and public buildings.
A growing number of people are using various forms of electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes, battery-operated nicotine inhalers (
Figure 17.24
, left). The nicotine is extracted from tobacco and mixed with chemicals such as propylene glycol and flavorings such as menthol, mint, and diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione (which provide a buttery taste). A lithium-ion battery heats the nicotine solution and converts it to a vapor that contains nicotine and other chemicals (mostly flavorings) that is inhaled and then exhaled (
Figure 17.24
, right). Smoking e-cigarettes is called vaping.
Figure 17.24
An e-cigarette that can be refilled with a solution of nicotine (e-juice), left photo. A battery converts the liquid to a vapor that is exhaled (right photo).
jps/ Shutterstock.com; deineka/ Shutterstock.com
Are e-cigarettes safe? No one knows, because they have not been around long enough to be thoroughly evaluated. E-cigarettes reduce or eliminate the inhalation of tar and numerous other harmful chemicals found in regular cigarette smoke. However, they expose users to highly addictive nicotine, which is categorized as a poison (
Table 17.1
), sometimes at levels of up to 5 times as high (10% nicotine) as that found in regular cigarettes (2% nicotine). There are claims that e-cigarettes may help smokers quit by discouraging e-cigarette users from smoking conventional cigarettes. However, evidence on these claims is controversial and will take years of research to evaluate. In 2015, a new type of very high-nicotine e-cigarette was released. Most commonly called a Juul and resembling a USB drive, it exposes users to an amount of nicotine equivalent to 200 puffs, or a pack of cigarettes.
Preliminary research indicates that some e-cigarette vapors contain trace amounts of toxic metals such as chromium, cadmium, nickel, lead, and arsenic that are released from the e-cigarette heating coils. Some of these toxins, not found in regular cigarette smoke, are nanoparticles small enough to get past the body’s defense systems and travel deep into the lungs and cause inflammation and tissue damage. Diacetyl and 2,3-pentadione flavoring chemicals can also be inhaled deep into the lungs. However, it will decades of research to establish any direct link between e-cigarettes and the long-term harmful effects of chemicals in e-cigarette vapor.
There is pressure on the FDA to ban some of the flavorings, especially menthol and mint, which make it easier for teenagers to smoke e-cigarettes. However, such a ban will take years to implement and is opposed by the major tobacco companies.
Some scientists warn that we are hooking a new generation of young people on nicotine with potentially unknown risks. The same thing happened to the generation of young people who became addicted to cigarette smoking in the 1950s and 1960s.
The European Union (EU) has banned the advertising and sales of e-cigarettes and tobacco products to minors, as well as internet sales of these products. EU regulations also limit the concentration of nicotine in e-cigarettes to 2% and require the disclosure of e-cigarette ingredients. They require that these products have childproof and tamper-proof packaging that carries graphic warnings on the harmful health effects of nicotine. In 2016, the FDA issued a set of rules that banned the sale of e-cigarettes to anyone under the age of 18. The rules also require package warning labels and make all existing and new e-cigarette products subject to FDA approval.
Currently the United States is suffering from an opioid drug overdose epidemic that kills 49,000 people per year, an average of 134 deaths a day. Many people are addicted to, and many die from, fentanyl and other opioids. Since 2017, the number of deaths from overdoses of synthetic opioids sold illegally exceeded those from opioids sold legally as prescription painkillers.
17.5bEstimating Risks from Technologies
The more complex a technological system, and the higher the number people required to design and run it, the more difficult it is to estimate the risks of using the system. The overall reliability of such a system—the probability (expressed as a percentage) that the system will complete a task without failing—is the product of two factors:
With careful design, quality control, maintenance, and monitoring, a highly complex system such as a nuclear power plant or a deep-sea oil-drilling rig can achieve a high degree of technological reliability. However, human reliability usually is much lower than technological reliability and is almost impossible to predict.
Suppose the estimated technological reliability of a nuclear power plant is 95% (0.95) and human reliability is 75% (0.75). Then the overall system reliability is . Even if we could make the technology 100% reliable (1.0), the overall system reliability would still be only .
We can make a system safer by moving more of the potentially fallible elements from the human side to the technological side. However, chance events such as a lightning strike can knock out an automatic control system, and no machine or computer program can completely replace human judgment. In addition, the parts in any automated control system are manufactured, assembled, tested, certified, inspected, and maintained by fallible human beings. Computer software programs used to monitor and control complex systems can also be flawed because of human design error or can be deliberately sabotaged to cause them to malfunction.
Learning from Nature
Locusts have highly evolved eyes that allow them to see in several directions simultaneously, which helps them to avoid colliding with each other when flying in swarms. Engineers are studying this in their quest to develop anti-collision devices for cars and airplanes.
17.5cMost People Do a Poor Job of Evaluating Risks
Most of us are not good at assessing the relative risks from the hazards that we encounter. Many people deny or shrug off the high-risk chances of death or injury from the voluntary activities they enjoy. These include risks of death by smoking (1 in 250 by age 70 for a pack-a-day smoker), motorcycling (1 in 1,000), hang gliding (1 in 1,250), and driving (1 in 3,300 without a seatbelt and 1 in 6,070 with a seatbelt).
Indeed, the most dangerous thing that many people do each day is to drive or ride in a car. Yet some of these same people may be terrified about their chances of being killed by getting pneumonia from the flu (a 1 in 130,000 chance), a nuclear power plant accident (1 in 200,000), West Nile virus (1 in 1 million), a lightning strike (1 in 3 million), Ebola virus (1 in 4 million), a commercial airplane crash (1 in 9 million), snakebite (1 in 36 million), or shark attack (1 in 281 million).
Five factors can cause people to see a technology or a product as being more or less risky than experts judge it to be. The first factor is fear. Research shows that fear causes people to overestimate risks and to worry more about catastrophic risks than they do about common, everyday risks. Studies show that people tend to overestimate numbers of deaths caused by tornadoes, floods, fires, homicides, cancer, and terrorist attacks, and to underestimate death tolls from flu, diabetes, asthma, heart attack, stroke, and automobile accidents.
The second factor clouding risk evaluation is the degree of control individuals have in a given situation. Many people have a greater fear of things over which they do not have personal control. For example, some individuals feel safer driving their own car for long distances than traveling the same distance on a plane, but look at the numbers. The risk of dying in a car accident in the United States while using a seatbelt is 1 in 6,070, whereas the risk of dying in a U.S. commercial airliner crash is about 1 in 9 million.
The third factor influencing risk evaluation is whether a risk is catastrophic or chronic. People usually are more frightened by news of catastrophic accidents such as a plane crash than of a cause of death such as smoking, which has a much higher death toll spread out over time.
Fourth, some people have optimism bias, the belief that risks that apply to other people do not apply to them. For example, they may be upset when they see others driving erratically while talking on a cell phone or texting but believe they can do so without impairing their own driving ability.
A fifth factor affecting risk analysis is that many of the risky things we do are highly pleasurable and give instant gratification, while the potential harm from such activities comes later. Examples are smoking cigarettes and eating too much food.
17.5dGuidelines for Evaluating and Reducing Risk
Here are four guidelines for better evaluating and reducing risk and making better lifestyle choices:
· Compare risks. In evaluating a risk, the key question is not “Is it safe?” but rather “How risky is it compared to other risks?”
· Determine how much risk you are willing to accept. For most people, a 1 in 100,000 chance of dying or suffering serious harm from exposure to an environmental hazard is a threshold for changing their behavior. However, in establishing standards and reducing risk, the EPA generally assumes that a 1 in 1 million chance of dying from an environmental hazard is acceptable.
· Evaluate the actual risk involved. The news media usually exaggerate the daily risks we face in order to capture our interest and attract more readers, listeners, or television viewers. As a result, most people who are exposed to a daily diet of such exaggerated reports believe that the world is much more dangerous and risk-filled than it really is.
· Concentrate on evaluating and carefully making important lifestyle choices. When evaluating risk, it is important to ask, “Do I have any control over this?” There is no point worrying about risks over which we have little or no control.
Big Ideas
· We face significant hazards from infectious diseases such as flu, AIDS, tuberculosis, diarrheal diseases, and malaria, and from exposure to chemicals that can cause cancers and birth defects, as well as chemicals that can disrupt the human immune, nervous, and endocrine systems.
· Because of the difficulty of evaluating the harm caused by exposure to chemicals, many health scientists call for much greater emphasis on pollution prevention.
· By becoming informed, thinking critically about risks, and making careful choices, we can reduce the major risks we face.
· In the
Core Case Study that opens this chapter, we saw that mercury (Hg) and its compounds that occur regularly in the environment can permanently damage the human nervous system, kidneys, and lungs and harm fetuses and cause birth defects. In this chapter, we also learned of many other chemical hazards, as well as biological, physical, cultural, and lifestyle hazards, in the environment. In addition, we saw how difficult it is to evaluate the nature and severity of threats from these various hazards.
· One of the important facts discussed in this chapter is that on a global basis, the greatest threat to human health is poverty (often leading to malnutrition and disease), followed air pollution, smoking, alcohol, and work-related injury and disease.
· There are some threats that we can do little to avoid, but we can reduce other threats, partly by applying the three scientific principles of sustainability. For example, we can greatly reduce our exposure to mercury and other pollutants by shifting from the use of nonrenewable fossil fuels (especially coal) to wider use of a diversity of renewable energy resources, including solar and wind energy. We can reduce our exposure to harmful chemicals used in the manufacturing of various goods by cutting resource use and waste and by reusing and recycling material resources. We can also mimic biodiversity by using diverse strategies for solving environmental and health problems, and for reducing poverty and controlling population growth. In doing this, we also help to preserve the earth’s biodiversity and increase our beneficial environmental impact.
· In the Core Case Study that opens this chapter, we saw that mercury (Hg) and its compounds that occur regularly in the environment can permanently damage the human nervous system, kidneys, and lungs and harm fetuses and cause birth defects. In this chapter, we also learned of many other chemical hazards, as well as biological, physical, cultural, and lifestyle hazards, in the environment. In addition, we saw how difficult it is to evaluate the nature and severity of threats from these various hazards.
· One of the important facts discussed in this chapter is that on a global basis, the greatest threat to human health is poverty (often leading to malnutrition and disease), followed air pollution, smoking, alcohol, and work-related injury and disease.
· There are some threats that we can do little to avoid, but we can reduce other threats, partly by applying the three scientific principles of sustainability. For example, we can greatly reduce our exposure to mercury and other pollutants by shifting from the use of nonrenewable fossil fuels (especially coal) to wider use of a diversity of renewable energy resources, including solar and wind energy. We can reduce our exposure to harmful chemicals used in the manufacturing of various goods by cutting resource use and waste and by reusing and recycling material resources. We can also mimic biodiversity by using diverse strategies for solving environmental and health problems, and for reducing poverty and controlling population growth. In doing this, we also help to preserve the earth’s biodiversity and increase our beneficial environmental impact.
15
–
Chapter Introduction
Core Case Study
Using Hydrofracking to Produce
Oil
and Natural Gas
15.1
Energy Resources
15.1a
Where Does the Energy We Use Come From?
15.1b
Net Energy: It Takes Energy to Get Energy
15.1c
Some Energy Resources Need
Subsidies
15.2
Oil
15.2a
We Depend Heavily On Oil
15.2b
Are We Running Out of Crude Oil?
15.2c
Environmental Impact of Heavy Oil
15.3
Natural Gas
15.3a
What Is Natural Gas?
15.3b
Natural Gas and Climate
15.4
Coal
15.4a
Coal: A Plentiful but Dirty Fuel
15 -Chapter Introduction
Core Case Study
Using Hydrofracking to Produce Oil and Natural Gas
15.1
Energy Resources
15.1a
Where Does the Energy We Use Come From?
15.1b
Net Energy: It Takes Energy to Get Energy
15.1c
Some Energy Resources Need Subsidies
15.2
Oil
15.2a
We Depend Heavily On Oil
15.2b
Are We Running Out of Crude Oil?
15.2c
Environmental Impact of Heavy Oil
15.3
Natural Gas
15.3a
What Is Natural Gas?
15.3b
Natural Gas and Climate
15.4
Coal
15.4a
Coal: A Plentiful but Dirty Fuel
C
hapter
16
·
·
·
Core Case Study
Saving Energy and Money
·
16.1
A New Energy Transition
·
16.1a
Establishing New Energy Priorities
·
16.2
Reducing Energy Waste
·
16.2a
We Waste a Lot of Energy and Money
·
16.2b
Improving Energy Efficiency in Industries and Utilities
·
16.2c
Building a Smarter and More Energy
–
Efficient
Electrical Grid
·
16.2d
Making Transportation More Energy
-Efficient
·
16.2e
Switching to Energy
–
Efficient Vehicles
·
16.2f
Buil
dings
That Save Energy and Money
·
16.2g
Air Conditioning and Climate Change
·
16.h
Saving Energy and Money in Existing Buil
dings
·
16.2i
Why Are We Wasting So Much Energy and Money?
·
16.2j
Relying More on Renewable Energy
·
16.3
Solar Energy
·
16.3a
Heating Buildings an
d Water with Solar Energy
·
16.3b
Cooling Buildings Naturally
·
16.3c
Concentrating Sunlight to Produce High
–
Temperature Heat and
Electricity
·
16.3d
Using Solar Cells to Produce Electricity
·
16.4
Wind Energy
·
16.4a
Using Wind to Produce Electricity
·
16.5
Geothermal Energy
·
16.5a
Tapping into
the Earth’s Internal Heat
·
16.6
Biomass Energy
·
16.6a
Producing Energy by Burning Solid Biomass
· 16.6b
Using Liquid Biofuels to Power Vehicles
· 16.7
Hydropower
· 16.7a
Producing
Electricity
from Falling and Flowing Water
· 16.8
Hydrogen
· 16.8a
Will Hydrogen Save Us?
· 16.9
A More Sustainable Energy Future
· 16.9a
Shifting to a New Energy Economy
· Tying It All Together
Saving Energy and Money and Reducing Our Environmental Impact
·
Chapter Review
·
Critical Thinking
·
Doing Environmental Science
·
Data Analysis
16.1aEstablishing New Energy Priorities
Shifting to new energy resources is not new. The world has shifted from primary dependence on wood to coal, then from coal to oil, and then to our current dependence on a mixture of oil, natural gas, and coal as new technologies made these three energy resources more available and affordable. Each of these shifts in key energy resources took about 50 to 60 years. Making an energy shift involves making an enormous investment in scientific research, engineering, research, technology, and infrastructure to develop and spread the use of new energy resources.
Currently, the world gets 85% of its commercial energy, and the United States gets 80% of its commercial energy from three carbon-containing fossil fuels—oil, coal, and natural gas (
Figure 15.2
). These energy resources have supported tremendous economic growth and improved the lives of many people.
However, many people are awakening to the fact that burning fossil fuels, especially coal, plays an important role in three of the world’s most serious environmental problems: air pollution, climate change, and ocean acidification. Fossil fuels are affordable because their market prices do not include these and other harmful health and environmental effects. In addition, they have been receiving government (taxpayer) subsides for decades, even though they are well-established and profi
table
businesses.
According to many scientists, energy experts, and energy economists, over the next 50 to 60 years and beyond, we need to and can make a new energy transition by
1. improving energy efficiency and reducing energy waste;
2. decreasing our dependence on nonrenewable fossil fuels;
3. relying more on a mix of renewable energy from the sun, wind, the earth’s interior heat (geothermal energy), and hydropower to produce most of the world’s electricity;
4. developing modern smart electrical grids to distribute electricity produced from renewable and nonrenewable energy resources; and
5. shifting to much greater dependence on electric cars, buses, scooters, and other vehicles with batteries that are recharged by electricity produced by solar cells and wind turbines.
Energy researchers and analysts point out that it is both technologically and economically feasible to make a transition toward getting most of our electricity from the sun and wind over the next 50-60 years. It would also be a way to implement the solar energy principle of sustainability globally.
This restructuring of the global energy system and economy over the next 50 to 60 years and beyond will save money, create profitable business and investment opportunities, and provide jobs. For example, building and installing solar cells and wind turbines (on land and at sea) will create thousands of jobs. It will also save lives by sharply reducing air pollution and by helping keep climate change and ocean acidification from spiraling out of control and creating ecological and economic chaos. Finally, it will increase our positive environmental impact, and pass the world on to future generations in better shape than we found it, in keeping with the ethical principle of sustainability.
This energy shift is being driven by the availability of perpetual supplies of clean and increasingly cheaper solar and wind energy throughout the world. Advances in solar cell and wind turbine technology have been steadily reducing the cost of using wind and solar energy to produce electricity. This is in contrast to fossil fuels, which are dependent on finite supplies that are not widely distributed, are controlled by a few countries, and are subject to fluctuating prices based on supply and demand.
In this new technology-driven energy economy, an increasing percentage of the world’s electricity will be produced locally from available sun and wind and regionally from solar cell power plants and wind farms. It will be transmitted to consumers through modern, interactive, smart electrical grids. Homeowners and businesses with solar panels on their land or their roofs (or roof coverings that contain solar cells) will be able to heat and cool their homes and businesses, run electrical devices, charge hybrid or electric cars, and sell the excess electricity they produce. The United States will benefit economically, because making such a market-based shift will set off an explosion of innovations in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and battery technology that will create millions of jobs. Old energy technologies would be replaced by cleaner and cheaper new energy technologies. According to economists, this is how creative capitalism works.
Like any major societal change, this shift will not be easy. However, to many analysts the current and long-term harmful environmental, health, and economic benefits of making this shift far outweigh any temporary harmful effects this shift might cause.
This shift is underway and gaining momentum as the cost of electricity produced from the sun and wind continues its rapid fall and investors see a way to make money on two of the world’s fastest growing businesses. Germany, Sweden, and Denmark have made significant progress in this energy resource transition.
Costa Rica is a global leader in this transition, as well as in reforestation (
Chapter 10
Core Case Study
). It gets none of its electricity from burning coal and more than 90% of its electricity from renewable resources—hydropower, geothermal energy, and wind and solar power. Costa Rica’s National Decarbonization Plan calls for having electric passenger trains in service by
20
22
and having nearly a third of its buses running on electricity by 2035. It also envisions nearly all of its cars and buses running on electricity by 2050, supported by battery recharging stations throughout the country. If this ambitious plan succeeds, it will show the world how a small country can make a transition to a new and more sustainable energy system.
The United States has yet to commit to making the new energy shift. The reasons are complex, but this is partly because of more than four decades of opposition by politically and economically powerful fossil fuel and electric utility companies. The only question is whether we have the political and ethical will to make this vitally important economic and environmental transition.
16.2aWe Waste a Lot of Energy and Money
Improving energy efficiency and wasting less energy are key strategies in using energy more sustainability. Energy efficiency is a measure of how much useful work we can get from each unit of energy. Improving energy efficiency means using less energy to provide the same amount of work. We can do this by using more energy-efficient cars, heating and cooling systems, light bulbs (such as LED bulbs), appliances, computers, and industrial processes.
43%
Percentage of energy used in the United States that is unnecessarily wasted.
No energy-using device operates at 100% efficiency because some energy is always lost to the environment as low-quality heat, as required by the second law of thermodynamics (see
Chapter 2
). About 84% of all commercial energy used in the United States is wasted (
Figure 16.2
). About 41% of this energy unavoidably ends up as low-quality waste heat in the environment because of the degradation of energy quality imposed by the second law of thermodynamics. The other 43% is wasted unnecessarily, mostly due to the inefficiency of industrial motors, motor vehicles, power plants, light bulbs, and numerous other devices. This wasted energy is the country’s largest untapped source of energy. Reducing this huge waste of energy would save consumers money and reduce our harmful environmental impact from energy use. According to energy experts, the United States has more potential for improving energy efficiency than any other country.
Figure 16.2
Flow of commercial energy through the U.S. economy. Only 16% of the country’s high-quality energy ends up performing useful tasks.
Critical Thinking:
1. What are two examples of unnecessary energy waste?
(Compiled by the authors using data from U.S. Department of Energy.)
Another reason for our costly and wasteful use of energy is that many people live and work in poorly insulated, leaky houses and buildings that require excessive heating during cold weather and excessive cooling during hot weather (see
Figure 16.1
). In addition, about 75% of Americans who commute to work do this mostly alone in energy-inefficient vehicles, and only 5% rely on more energy-efficient mass transit.
A major way in which we waste energy and money is through heavy reliance on widely used energy-inefficient technologies. One example is data centers, which process all online information (such as data on social media sites) and provide cloud-based data storage for users. These data centers–some of them as big as two football fields–require huge amounts of energy to operate and to cool because of the massive heat thrown off by their rows and rows of servers. Typically, these centers use only 10% of the electrical energy they consume. The other 90% is lost as waste heat. These data centers run
24
hours a day at their maximum capacities, regardless of the demand. Some data companies are reducing their environmental impact by getting the electricity they use mostly or totally from solar and wind energy.
Another example of energy waste is internal combustion engine, which propels most motor vehicles. It wastes about 75% of the high-quality energy in its gasoline fuel. Thus, only about 25% of the money people spend on gasoline provides them with transportation. The other 75% pays for waste heat released into the atmosphere.
We could cut much of this energy waste by changing our behavior.
Energy conservation
means reducing or eliminating the unnecessary waste of energy. If you ride your bicycle to school or work rather than driving a car, you are practicing energy conservation. Another way to waste less energy and money is to turn off lights and electronic devices when you are finished using them.
Improving energy efficiency and conserving energy have numerous economic, health, and environmental benefits (
Figure 16.3
). To most energy analysts, they are the quickest, cleanest, and usually the cheapest ways to provide more energy, reduce pollution and environmental degradation, and slow climate change and ocean acidification.
Figure 16.3
Improving energy efficiency and conserving energy can have important benefits.
Critical Thinking:
1. Which two of these benefits do you think are the most important? Why?
Top: Dmitry Raikin/
Shutterstock.com
. Center: V. J. Matthew/ Shutterstock.com. Bottom: andrea lehmkuhl/ Shutterstock.com.
However, improving energy efficiency and conserving energy are not always an option for people who cannot afford to invest in them. As a result, these people are unable to reduce their energy bills. There is a growing network of public and private programs designed to upgrade energy efficiency in public housing units, provide affordable tax credits for energy efficiency upgrades, and assist individual homeowners in improving energy efficiency. Many are calling for increasing such efforts.
16.2bImproving Energy Efficiency in Industries and Utilities
Industry accounts for about 36% of the world’s energy consumption and 33% of U.S. energy consumption. Industries that use the most energy are those that produce petroleum, chemicals, cement, steel, aluminum, and paper and wood products.
Utility companies and industries can save energy by using
cogeneration
to produce two useful forms of energy from the same fuel source. For example, the steam used for generating electricity in a power or industrial plant can be captured and used again to heat the plant or other nearby buildings. The energy efficiency of cogeneration systems is 60–80%, compared to 25–35% for coal-fired and nuclear power plants. Denmark uses cogeneration to produce 38% of its electricity compared to
12
% in the United States.
Inefficient motors account for 60% of the electricity used in U.S. industry. Industries can save energy and money by using more energy-efficient variable-speed electric motors that run at the minimum speed needed for each job. In contrast, standard electric motors run at full speed with their output throttled to match the task. This is somewhat like using one foot to push the gas pedal to the floorboard of your car and putting your other foot on the brake pedal to control its speed.
Recycling materials such as steel and other metals can save energy and money in industry. For example, producing steel from recycled scrap iron uses 75% less high-quality energy than does producing steel from virgin iron ore and emits 40% less . Industries can also save energy by using energy-efficient LED lighting; installing smart meters to monitor energy use; and shutting off computers, printers, and nonessential lights when they are not being used.
A growing number of major corporations are saving money by improving energy efficiency. For example, between 1990 and 2015, Dow Chemical Company, which operates 165 manufacturing plants in 37 countries, saved $27 billion in a comprehensive program to improve energy efficiency, and these efforts continue. Ford Motor Company saves $1 million a year by turning off computers that are not in use.
16.2cBuilding a Smarter and More Energy-Efficient Electrical Grid
In the United States, electricity is delivered to consumers through an electrical grid. The U.S. electrical grid system, designed more than 100 years ago, is inefficient and outdated. According to former U.S. energy secretary Bill Richardson, “We’re a major superpower with a third-world electrical grid system.”
There is increasing pressure to convert and expand the outdated U.S. electrical grid system into a smart grid. This new grid would be a digitally controlled, ultra-high-voltage (UHV), and high-capacity system with superefficient transmission lines. It would be less vulnerable to power outages because it could quickly adjust for a major power loss in one part of the country by automatically rerouting available electricity from other parts of the country. A national network of wind farms and solar power connected to a smart grid would make the sun and wind reliable sources of electricity around the clock without having expensive backup systems. Without such a grid, the contribution of wind and solar energy is unlikely to expand as projected.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), building such a grid would cost the United States up to $800 billion over the next 20 years. However, it would save the U.S. economy $2 trillion during that period. So far, the U.S. Congress has not authorized significant funding for this vital component of the country’s energy and economic future. Meanwhile, China is investing in establishing a smart national electrical grid system.
The two fastest growing energy resources in the world and in the United States are solar and wind energy used to produce electricity. However, this growth will be limited unless wind farms and solar cell power plants built in sparsely populated areas or at sea can be connected to a smart grid. A national network of wind farms and solar cell power plants in the United States would make the sun and wind reliable sources of electricity around the clock. Without such a grid, the United States will not reap the environmental and economic advantages of relying on the sun and wind to produce most of its electricity. 16.2dMaking Transportation More Energy-Efficient
In 1975, the U.S. Congress established Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to improve the average fuel economy of new cars and light trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) in the United States. Between 1973 and 2015, these standards increased the average fuel economy for such vehicles in the United States from 5 kilometers per liter, or kpl (11.9 miles per gallon, or mpg) to 10.6 kpl (24.9 mpg). The government fuel-economy goal has been 23.3 kpl (
54
.5 mpg) by 2025 (South Korea, the European Union, and Canada have even higher goals). According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), this would provide $100 billion of benefits from reduced air pollution while lowering carbon dioxide emissions and reducing oil imports because of more efficient transportation.
However, in 2018, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation, under pressure from some automakers, proposed reducing the fuel-economy goal to 12 kpl (
29
mpg) and prohibiting California and 13 other states from car emission standards higher than those set by the federal government, a privilege granted under the 1970 Clean Air Act.
Critics of these government proposals point out that since the mid-1970s motor vehicle air pollution, including emissions of climate-changing per kilometer of travel has dropped sharply and motor vehicle fatalities have dropped 65% as average fuel economy has increased. They also point out that not promoting a shift to much higher fuel economy standards would reduce efforts to slow climate change.
Energy experts project that by 2040, all new cars and light trucks sold in the United States could get more than 43 kpl (100 mpg) using available technology. Part of this is due to new and more efficient internal combustion engines. Achieving this level of fuel efficiency is an important way to reduce energy waste, save consumers money, cut air pollution, and slow climate change and ocean acidification.
However, many consumers buy energy-inefficient sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) and pickup trucks, which are more profitable for automakers and accounted for 60% of new vehicles sales in the United States in 2018. One reason for this is that most consumers are unaware that gasoline costs them much more than the price they pay at the pump. A number of hidden gasoline costs not included in the price of gasoline include government subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies, car manufacturers, and road builders. Hidden costs also include costs related to pollution control and cleanup and higher medical bills and health insurance premiums resulting from illnesses caused by air and water pollution related to the production and use of motor vehicles. The International Center for Technology Assessment estimated that the hidden costs of gasoline for U.S. consumers amount to $3.18 per liter ($12.00 per gallon).
One way to include more of these hidden costs in the market price is through higher gasoline taxes—an application of the full-cost pricing principle of sustainability. However, higher gas taxes are politically unpopular, especially in the United States. Some analysts call for increasing U.S. gasoline taxes and reducing payroll and income taxes to offset any additional financial burden to consumers. Another way for governments to encourage higher energy efficiency in transportation is to give consumers significant tax breaks or other economic incentives to encourage them to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Other ways to save energy and money in transportation include building or expanding mass transit systems within cities, constructing high-speed rail lines between cities (as is done in Japan, much of Europe, and China), and carrying more freight by rail instead of in heavy trucks. Another approach is to encourage bicycle use by building bike lanes along highways and city streets
16.hSaving Energy and Money in Existing Buildings
Here are ways to reduce energy use in existing buildings and to cut energy waste and save money on electricity, heating, and cooling bills (see
Core Case Study
):
· Conduct an energy audit to detect air leaks (
Figure 16.1
).
· Insulate the building and plug air leaks.
· Use energy-efficient (double- or triple-pane) windows.
· Seal leaky heating and cooling ducts in attics and unheated basements.
·
Heat interior spaces more efficiently. In order, the most energy-efficient ways to heat indoor space are superinsulation (including plugging leaks); a geothermal heat pump that transfers heat stored from underground into a home; passive solar heating; a high-efficiency, conventional heat pump (in warm climates only); and a high-efficiency natural gas furnace.
· Heat water more efficiently. One option is a roof-mounted solar hot water heater. Another option is a tankless instant water heater. It uses natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas (but not an electric heater, which is inefficient) to deliver hot water only when it is needed rather than keeping water in a large tank hot all the time.
· Use energy-efficient appliances. A refrigerator with its freezer in a drawer on the bottom uses about half as much energy as one with the freezer on the top or on the side, which allows dense cold air to flow out quickly when the door is opened. Microwave ovens use less electricity than electric stoves do for cooking and 66% less energy than conventional ovens. Front-loading clothes washers use 55% less energy and 30% less water than top-loading models use and cut operating costs in half.
· Use energy-efficient computers. According to the EPA, if all computers sold in the United States met its Energy Star requirements, consumers would save $1.8 billion a year in energy costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equal to that of taking about 2 million cars off the road.
· Use energy-efficient lighting. The DOE estimates that by switching to energy-efficient LED bulbs over the next 20 years, U.S. consumers could save money and reduce the demand for electricity by an amount equal to the output of 40 new power plants. In recent years, the cost of LED bulbs has fallen by 90%. They last 25 times longer than traditional incandescent bulbs (which waste 95% of their energy) and 2.5 times longer than compact fluorescent bulbs.
· Stop using the standby mode. Consumers can reduce their energy use and their monthly power bills by plugging their standby electronic devices into smart power strips that cut off power to a device when it detects that the device has been turned off.
Figure 16.8
lists ways in which individuals can cut energy use and save money in their homes.
Figure 16.8
Individuals matter: People can save energy and money where they live and reduce their harmful environmental impact.
16.2iWhy Are We Wasting So Much Energy and Money?
Considering its impressive array of economic and environmental benefits (Figure 16.3), why is there so little emphasis on reducing energy waste by improving energy efficiency and conserving energy? One reason is that energy resources such as fossil fuels and nuclear power are artificially cheap. This is primarily because of the government subsidies and tax breaks they receive and because their market prices do not include the harmful environmental and health costs of producing and using them. This distortion of the energy marketplace violates the full-cost pricing principle of sustainability.
Another reason for continuing energy waste is that governments do not provide significant government tax breaks, rebates, low-interest and long-term loans, and other economic incentives for individuals and businesses to invest in improving energy efficiency. A third reason is that most governments and utility companies have not put a high priority on educating the public about the environmental and economic advantages of improving energy efficiency and conserving energy.
Some critics say an emphasis on improving energy efficiency does not work because of the rebound effect in which some people tend to use more energy when they buy energy-efficient devices. For example, some people who buy a more efficient car tend to drive more, which offsets some of their energy and money savings and their reduced environmental impact.
Instead of downplaying efforts to improve energy efficiency, energy experts call for a major program to educate people about the rebound effect and its waste of money and long-lasting harmful health and environmental effects.
16.2jRelying More on Renewable Energy
In addition to reducing energy waste, we can make greater use of renewable energy from the sun, wind, flowing water, biomass, and heat from the earth’s interior (geothermal energy). The lesson from one of nature’s three scientific principles of sustainability is to rely mostly on solar energy. Most forms of renewable energy can be traced to the sun, because wind, flowing water, and biomass would not exist, were it not for solar energy. Another form of renewable energy is geothermal energy, or heat from the earth’s interior. All of these sources of renewable energy are constantly replenished at no cost to us.
In 2018, renewable energy, mostly solar and wind energy, provided about 8.4% the world’s electricity and 8.2% of U.S. electricity, according to BP. Studies by the IEA and the United Nations Environment Programme, project that with increased and consistent government backing in the form of research and development funds, subsidies and tax breaks, renewable energy from the sun and wind could provide as much as 50% of the world’s electricity by 2050. The U.S.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) projects that, with a crash program, the United States could get as much as 50% of its electricity from renewable energy sources—mostly wind and solar—by 2050. In 2017, jobs in solar and wind power were growing 12 times faster than the rest of the U.S. economy, according to a report from the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund. In 2017, renewable energy provided about 786,000 jobs in the United States, 1.2 million in Europe, and 3.8 million in China, according to the Renewable Energy Agency.
In 2018, California, the world’s fifth largest economy, got 36% of its electricity from renewable energy resources. That year, California’s legislature passed a law requiring the state to get 60% of electricity from renewable energy resources by 2030 and 100% by 2045. In 2018, the legislature also passed a law requiring solar panels on all new homes built after 2020.
According to the IEA, solar and wind are the world’s fastest-growing energy resources and nuclear energy is the slowest (
Figure 15.24
). China has the world’s largest installed capacity for electricity from wind power and solar cells. It plans to become the largest user and seller of wind turbines and solar cells, which are projected to be two of the world’s fastest growing businesses over the next few decades. China’s goal is to greatly expand its production of electricity from renewable wind, sun, and flowing water (hydropower) to help reduce its use of coal and the resulting outdoor air pollution that kills about 1.2 million of its citizens each year.
If renewable energy is so great, why does it provide only 11% of the world’s energy (Figure 15.2, left) and 12% of the energy used in the United States (Figure 15.2, right)? There are several reasons.
First, people tend to think that solar and wind energy are too diffuse, too intermittent and unreliable, and too expensive to use on a large scale. However, these perceptions are out of date. In the United States, solar and wind energy have become cheaper sources of electricity than coal and nuclear power and are equal to or cheaper than natural gas in some areas. Use of back-up storage systems for wind and solar power—including lithium-ion, zinc-air, and sodium-sulfur rechargeable battery systems is projected to increase tenfold in the next few years. The use of a new nationwide smart electrical grid could also help make solar and wind energy reliable sources of electricity by shifting electricity among different source locations to even out the power supply regionally and nationally.
Second, since 1950, government tax breaks, subsidies, and funding for research and development of renewable energy resources have been much lower than those for fossil fuels and nuclear power. According to the IEA, global subsidies for fossil fuels are nearly 10 times more than global subsidies for renewable energy.
Third, U.S. government subsidies and tax breaks for renewable energy have been increasing, but Congress must renew them every few years, which hinders investments in renewable energy. In contrast, billions of dollars of annual subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power have essentially been guaranteed for many decades thanks in large part to political pressure from these industries.
Fourth, the prices for nonrenewable fossil fuels and nuclear power do not include most of the harmful environmental and human health costs of producing and using them. As a result, they are partially shielded from free-market competition with cleaner renewable sources of energy.
Fifth, history shows that it typically takes 50 to 60 years to make a shift from one set of key energy resources to another. Renewable wind and solar energy are the world’s fastest growing sources of energy, but it will likely take several decades for them to supply 25% or more of the world’s electricity.
16.3bCooling Buildings Naturally
Direct solar energy works against us when we want to keep a building cool. However, we can use indirect solar energy (mainly wind) to help cool buildings. We can open windows to take advantage of breezes and use fans to keep the air moving. When there is no breeze, superinsulation and high-efficiency windows keep hot air outside.
Other ways to keep buildings cool include:
1. blocking the sun with shade trees, broad overhanging eaves, window awnings, or shades;
2. using a light-colored roof to reflect up to 90% of the sun’s heat (compared to only 10–15% for a dark-colored roof), or using a living or green roof; and
3. using geothermal heat pumps to pump cool air from underground into a building during summer.
Learning from Nature
Some species of African termites stay cool in a hot climate by building giant mounds that allow air to circulate through them. Engineers have used this design lesson from nature to cool buildings naturally, reduce energy use, and save money.
16.3cConcentrating Sunlight to Produce High-Temperature Heat and Electricity
One of the problems with direct solar energy is that it is dispersed.
Solar thermal systems
, also known as concentrated solar power (CSP), use different methods to collect and concentrate solar energy to boil water and produce steam for generating electricity. These systems can be used in deserts and other open areas with ample sunlight.
One such system uses rows of curved mirrors, called parabolic troughs, to collect and concentrate sunlight. Each trough focuses incoming sunlight on a pipe that runs through its center and is filled with synthetic oil (
Figure 16.13
). Solar energy heats this oil to a temperature high enough to boil water and produce steam that spins a turbine to generate electricity.
Figure 16.13
Solar thermal power: This solar power plant in California’s Mojave Desert uses curved (parabolic) solar collectors to concentrate solar energy for producing electricity.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Another solar thermal system (
Figure 16.14
) uses an array of computer-controlled mirrors to track the sun and focus its energy on a central power tower. The concentrated heat is used to boil water and produce steam that drives turbines to produce electricity. The heat produced by either of these systems can also be used to melt a type of salt stored in a large insulated container. The heat stored in this molten salt backup system can be released as needed to produce electricity at night or on cloudy days.
Figure 16.14
Solar thermal power: In this system in California an array of mirrors tracks the sun and focuses reflected sunlight on a central receiver to boil the water for producing electricity.
Sandia National Laboratories/National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Some analysts see solar thermal power as a growing and important source of the world’s electricity. However, because solar thermal systems have a low net energy, they require large government subsidies or tax breaks to be competitive in the marketplace. These systems also require large volumes of cooling water for condensing the steam back to water and for washing the surfaces of the mirrors and parabolic troughs. However, they are usually built in sunny, arid desert areas where water is scarce.
Figure 16.15
summarizes the major advantages and disadvantages of using these solar thermal systems.
Figure 16.15
Using solar energy to generate high-temperature heat and electricity has advantages and disadvantages.
Critical Thinking:
1. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Why or why not?
Top: Sandia National Laboratories/National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Bottom: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
We can also use concentrated solar energy on a smaller scale. In some sunny areas, people use inexpensive solar cookers to focus and concentrate sunlight for boiling and sterilizing water (
Figure 16.16
, left) and cooking food (Figure 16.16, right). Solar cookers can replace wood and charcoal fires and reduce indoor air pollution, a major health hazard in less-developed nations. They also help reduce deforestation by decreasing the need for firewood and charcoal made from firewood.
Figure 16.16
Solutions: Solar cooker (left) in Costa Rica and simple solar oven (right).
chriss73/ Shutterstock.com; M. Cornelius/ Shutterstock.com
16.3dUsing Solar Cells to Produce Electricity
In 1931, Thomas Edison (inventor of the electric light bulb) told Henry Ford, “I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. … I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.” Edison’s dream is now a reality.
We can convert solar energy directly into electrical energy using
photovoltaic (PV) cells
, commonly called
solar cells
. Most solar cells are thin transparent wafers of purified silicon (Si) or polycrystalline silicon with trace amounts of metals that allow them to produce electricity when sunlight strikes them. Solar cells are wired together in a panel and many panels can be connected to produce electricity for a house or a large solar power plant (
Figure 16.17
). Such systems can be connected to electrical grids or to batteries that store the electrical energy until it is needed. Large solar-cell power plants are operating in Germany, Spain, Portugal, South Korea, China, and the southeastern United States. In 2017, factories in China produced more than two-thirds of the world’s solar cell panels.
Figure 16.17
Solar cell power plant: Huge arrays of solar cells can be connected to produce electricity.
Ollyy/ Shutterstock.com
Arrays of solar cells can be mounted on rooftops or incorporated into almost any type of roofing material. Nanotechnology and other emerging technologies will likely allow the manufacturing of solar cells in paper-thin, rigid or flexible sheets that can be printed like newspapers and attached to or embedded in other surfaces such as outdoor walls, windows, drapes, and clothing (to recharge batteries in mobile phones and other personal electronic devices).
Figure 16.18
shows a solar cell village in Germany. Solar power providers in several countries are putting floating arrays of solar cell panels on the surfaces of lakes, reservoirs, ponds, and canals. In 2017, China developed the world’s largest floating solar farm on a lake. Engineers are developing dirt and water-repellent coatings to keep solar panels and collectors clean without having to use water. GREEN CAREER: Solar-cell technology
Figure 16.18
Solar cell village in Germany.
iStock.com
/schmidt-z
Nearly 1.3 billion people, most of them in rural villages in less developed countries are not connected to an electrical grid. A growing number of these people are using rooftop solar panels (
Figure 16.19
) to power energy-efficient LED lamps that can replace costly and inefficient kerosene lamps that pollute indoor air. Expanding off-grid solar-cell systems to additional rural villages will help hundreds of millions of people lift themselves out of poverty and reduce their exposure to deadly indoor air pollution.
Figure 16.19
Solutions: A solar cell panel provides electricity for lighting this hut in rural West Bengal, India. In 2017, solar cells produced 6.3% of India’s electricity.
Jim Welc/National Renewable Energy Laboratory
India has more than 300 million mostly rural poor people who are not connected to an electrical grid. Private entrepreneurs in India and Africa are setting up stand-alone solar-powered microgrids where a centralized group of solar cell panels are connected by cable to a few dozen homes and local businesses. Customers use cell phones to connect to village smart meters and purchase a certain amount of electricity. The smart meters cut off the power when a user’s payment runs out.
Solar cells have no moving parts, need no water for cooling, and operate safely and quietly. They do not emit greenhouse gases or other air pollutants, but they are not a carbon-free option because fossil fuels are used to produce and transport the panels. However, the emissions per unit of electricity produced are much smaller than those generated by using fossil fuels and nuclear power to produce electricity. Conventional solar cells also contain toxic materials that must be recovered when the cells wear out after 20–25 years of use, or when they are replaced by new systems.
One problem with current solar cells is their low energy efficiency. They typically convert only about 20% of the incoming solar energy into electricity, although their efficiency is rapidly improving. In 2014, researchers at Germany’s Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems developed a solar cell with an efficiency of 45%—compared to an efficiency of 35% for fossil fuel and nuclear electric power plants. They are working to scale up this prototype cell for commercial use.
Figure 16.20
lists the major advantages and disadvantages of using solar cells to produce electricity.
Figure 16.20
Using solar cells to produce electricity has advantages and disadvantages.
Critical Thinking:
1. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Why or why not?
Top: Martin D. Vonka/ Shutterstock.com. Bottom: pedrosala/ Shutterstock.com.
Some businesses and homeowners are spreading the cost of rooftop solar power systems over decades by including them in their mortgages. Others are leasing solar-cell systems from companies that install and maintain them.
Some communities and neighborhoods are using community solar or shared solar systems to provide electricity for individuals who rent or live in condominiums, or whose access to sunlight is blocked by buildings or trees. Customers buy the power from a centrally located small solar cell power plant. The power is delivered by the local utility and customers share deductions on their monthly bills for any excess power the project sells back to the grid.
Use of solar cells is the world’s fastest growing way of producing electricity. Between 2001 and 2018, the cost per watt of electricity produced by solar cells fell by 80%. Producing electricity from solar cells is expected to grow because solar energy is unlimited and available throughout the world. It is also a technology, not a fuel such as coal or natural gas, the prices of which are controlled by available supplies. Prices for solar cell systems are likely to continue dropping because of technological advances, mass production, and decreased installation costs. In 2018, California had half of the country’s rooftop solar cell installations and a quarter of U.S. solar-energy jobs.
Solar cells cannot produce electricity at night, and storing energy in large batteries for use at night and on cloudy days is expensive. However, researchers at Ohio State University have developed a solar cell panel with a built-in battery that is 25% less expensive and 20% more efficient than conventional batteries. If it can be mass-produced, this invention could revolutionize the use of solar energy to produce electricity. GREEN CAREER: Solar-cell technology
Learning from Nature
A rainforest butterfly species called the glasswing, with its transparent wings, provided the inspiration for a cost-effective coating for solar panels that allows the panels to absorb more light and generate electricity more efficiently.
If pushed hard and supported by government subsidies equivalent to or greater than fossil fuel subsidies, solar energy could supply as much as 23% of U.S. electricity by 2050, according to projections by the NREL. After 2050, solar electricity is likely to become one of the top sources of electricity for the United States and much of the world. If this happens, it will represent a global application of the solar energy principle of sustainability.
16.3dUsing Solar Cells to Produce Electricity
In 1931, Thomas Edison (inventor of the electric light bulb) told Henry Ford, “I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. … I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.” Edison’s dream is now a reality.
We can convert solar energy directly into electrical energy using
photovoltaic (PV) cells
, commonly called
solar cells
. Most solar cells are thin transparent wafers of purified silicon (Si) or polycrystalline silicon with trace amounts of metals that allow them to produce electricity when sunlight strikes them. Solar cells are wired together in a panel and many panels can be connected to produce electricity for a house or a large solar power plant (Figure 16.17). Such systems can be connected to electrical grids or to batteries that store the electrical energy until it is needed. Large solar-cell power plants are operating in Germany, Spain, Portugal, South Korea, China, and the southeastern United States. In 2017, factories in China produced more than two-thirds of the world’s solar cell panels.
Figure 16.17
Solar cell power plant: Huge arrays of solar cells can be connected to produce electricity.
Ollyy/ Shutterstock.com
Arrays of solar cells can be mounted on rooftops or incorporated into almost any type of roofing material. Nanotechnology and other emerging technologies will likely allow the manufacturing of solar cells in paper-thin, rigid or flexible sheets that can be printed like newspapers and attached to or embedded in other surfaces such as outdoor walls, windows, drapes, and clothing (to recharge batteries in mobile phones and other personal electronic devices). Figure 16.18 shows a solar cell village in Germany. Solar power providers in several countries are putting floating arrays of solar cell panels on the surfaces of lakes, reservoirs, ponds, and canals. In 2017, China developed the world’s largest floating solar farm on a lake. Engineers are developing dirt and water-repellent coatings to keep solar panels and collectors clean without having to use water. GREEN CAREER: Solar-cell technology
Figure 16.18
Solar cell village in Germany.
iStock.com/schmidt-z
Nearly 1.3 billion people, most of them in rural villages in less developed countries are not connected to an electrical grid. A growing number of these people are using rooftop solar panels (Figure 16.19) to power energy-efficient LED lamps that can replace costly and inefficient kerosene lamps that pollute indoor air. Expanding off-grid solar-cell systems to additional rural villages will help hundreds of millions of people lift themselves out of poverty and reduce their exposure to deadly indoor air pollution.
Figure 16.19
Solutions: A solar cell panel provides electricity for lighting this hut in rural West Bengal, India. In 2017, solar cells produced 6.3% of India’s electricity.
Jim Welc/National Renewable Energy Laboratory
India has more than 300 million mostly rural poor people who are not connected to an electrical grid. Private entrepreneurs in India and Africa are setting up stand-alone solar-powered microgrids where a centralized group of solar cell panels are connected by cable to a few dozen homes and local businesses. Customers use cell phones to connect to village smart meters and purchase a certain amount of electricity. The smart meters cut off the power when a user’s payment runs out.
Solar cells have no moving parts, need no water for cooling, and operate safely and quietly. They do not emit greenhouse gases or other air pollutants, but they are not a carbon-free option because fossil fuels are used to produce and transport the panels. However, the emissions per unit of electricity produced are much smaller than those generated by using fossil fuels and nuclear power to produce electricity. Conventional solar cells also contain toxic materials that must be recovered when the cells wear out after 20–25 years of use, or when they are replaced by new systems.
One problem with current solar cells is their low energy efficiency. They typically convert only about 20% of the incoming solar energy into electricity, although their efficiency is rapidly improving. In 2014, researchers at Germany’s Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems developed a solar cell with an efficiency of 45%—compared to an efficiency of 35% for fossil fuel and nuclear electric power plants. They are working to scale up this prototype cell for commercial use. Figure 16.20 lists the major advantages and disadvantages of using solar cells to produce electricity.
Figure 16.20
Using solar cells to produce electricity has advantages and disadvantages.
Critical Thinking:
1. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Why or why not?
Top: Martin D. Vonka/ Shutterstock.com. Bottom: pedrosala/ Shutterstock.com.
Some businesses and homeowners are spreading the cost of rooftop solar power systems over decades by including them in their mortgages. Others are leasing solar-cell systems from companies that install and maintain them.
Some communities and neighborhoods are using community solar or shared solar systems to provide electricity for individuals who rent or live in condominiums, or whose access to sunlight is blocked by buildings or trees. Customers buy the power from a centrally located small solar cell power plant. The power is delivered by the local utility and customers share deductions on their monthly bills for any excess power the project sells back to the grid.
Use of solar cells is the world’s fastest growing way of producing electricity. Between 2001 and 2018, the cost per watt of electricity produced by solar cells fell by 80%. Producing electricity from solar cells is expected to grow because solar energy is unlimited and available throughout the world. It is also a technology, not a fuel such as coal or natural gas, the prices of which are controlled by available supplies. Prices for solar cell systems are likely to continue dropping because of technological advances, mass production, and decreased installation costs. In 2018, California had half of the country’s rooftop solar cell installations and a quarter of U.S. solar-energy jobs.
Solar cells cannot produce electricity at night, and storing energy in large batteries for use at night and on cloudy days is expensive. However, researchers at Ohio State University have developed a solar cell panel with a built-in battery that is 25% less expensive and 20% more efficient than conventional batteries. If it can be mass-produced, this invention could revolutionize the use of solar energy to produce electricity. GREEN CAREER: Solar-cell technology
Learning from Nature
A rainforest butterfly species called the glasswing, with its transparent wings, provided the inspiration for a cost-effective coating for solar panels that allows the panels to absorb more light and generate electricity more efficiently.
If pushed hard and supported by government subsidies equivalent to or greater than fossil fuel subsidies, solar energy could supply as much as 23% of U.S. electricity by 2050, according to projections by the NREL. After 2050, solar electricity is likely to become one of the top sources of electricity for the United States and much of the world. If this happens, it will represent a global application of the solar energy principle of sustainability.
16.5aTapping into the Earth’s Internal Heat
Geothermal energy
is heat stored in soil, underground rocks, and fluids in the earth’s mantle. It is used to heat and cool buildings and to heat water to produce electricity. Geothermal energy is available around the clock but is practical only at sites with high enough concentrations of underground heat.
A geothermal heat pump system (
Figure 16.24
) can heat and cool a house almost anywhere in the world. This system makes use of the temperature difference between the earth’s surface and underground at a depth of 3–6 meters (10–20 feet), where the temperature typically is year-round. In winter, a closed loop of buried pipes circulates a fluid, which extracts heat from the ground and carries it to a heat pump, which transfers the heat to a home’s heat distribution system. In summer, this system works in reverse, removing heat from a home’s interior and storing it below ground.
Figure 16.24
Natural capital: A geothermal heat pump system can heat or cool a house almost anywhere.
According to the EPA, a geothermal heat pump system is the most energy-efficient, reliable, environmentally clean, and cost-effective way to heat or cool a space. Installation costs can be high but are recouped within 3 to 5 years, after which these systems save energy and money for their owners. Initial costs can be added to a home mortgage to spread the financial burden over two or more decades.
Engineers have also learned how to tap into deeper, more concentrated hydrothermal reservoirs of geothermal energy (
Figure 16.25
). Wells are drilled into the reservoirs to extract their dry steam (with a low water content), wet steam (with a high water content), or hot water. The steam or hot water can be used to heat homes and buildings, provide hot water, grow vegetables in greenhouses, raise fish in aquaculture ponds, and spin turbines to produce electricity.
Figure 16.25
Power plants can produce electricity from heat extracted from underground geothermal reservoirs. The photo shows a geothermal power plant in Iceland that produces electricity and heats a nearby spa called the Blue Lagoon.
Richard Nowitz/National Geographic Image Collection
Drilling geothermal wells, like drilling oil and natural gas wells, is expensive and requires a major investment. It is also a risky investment because drilling projects do not always succeed in tapping into concentrated deposits of geothermal energy. Once a successful deposit is found, it can supply geothermal energy for heat or to produce electricity around the clock, as long as heat is not removed from the deposit faster than the earth replaces it—usually at a slow rate. When this happens, geothermal energy becomes a nonrenewable resource.
Geothermal energy generates electricity in 24 countries and provides heat in 70 countries. The United States is the world’s largest producer of geothermal electricity from hydrothermal reservoirs, most of it in California, Nevada, Utah, and Hawaii.
Figure 16.26
is a map of the best geothermal energy sites in the continental United States. The U.S. Geothermal Energy Association (GEO) estimates that 90% of the available geothermal energy for producing electricity in the United States and 60% of the potential supply in California has not been tapped.
Figure 16.26
Potential geothermal energy resources in the continental United States.
(Compiled by the authors using data from U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Geological Survey)
Iceland gets almost all of its electricity from renewable hydroelectric (72%) and geothermal (25%) power plants (Figure 16.25, photo) and about 90% of its demand for heat and hot water from geothermal energy. In Peru, a National Geographic Explorer is carrying out research to develop that country’s geothermal resources (
Individuals Matter 16.1
).
Individuals Matter 16.1
Andrés Ruzo—Geothermal Energy Sleuth and National Geographic Explorer
Courtesy of Andrés Ruzo
Andrés Ruzo is a geophysicist with a passion to learn about geothermal energy and to show how this renewable and clean energy source can help us solve some of the world’s energy problems. As a boy, he spent summers on the family farm in Nicaragua. Because the farm rests on top of the Casita Volcano, he was able to experience firsthand the power of the earth’s heat.
As an undergraduate student at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, Texas (USA), because of his boyhood experience, he took a course in volcanology. The course awakened his passion for geology along with a desire to learn more about the earth’s heat as a source of energy. This led him to pursue a PhD in geophysics at SMU’s Geothermal Laboratory.
Beginning in 2009, he has been gathering data across Peru to develop the country’s first detailed heat flow map—which will help identify areas of geothermal energy potential. His fieldwork involves lowering temperature-measuring equipment down into oil, gas, mining, or water wells. Much of this work was done in the Talara Desert in northwestern Peru, where surface temperatures can exceed . These data illustrate how thermal energy flows through the upper crust of the earth, and highlights areas where earth’s heat can potentially be tapped as a source of energy.
Ruzo believes that geothermal energy is a “sleeping giant” that, if properly harnessed, can be an important renewable source of heat and electricity. He says that his goal in life is “to be a force of positive change in the world.”
Another source of geothermal energy is hot, dry rock found 5 kilometers or more (3 miles or more) underground almost everywhere. Water can be injected through deep wells drilled into this rock. Some of the water absorbs the underground heat and becomes steam that is brought to the surface and used to spin turbines to generate electricity. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, tapping just 2% of this source of geothermal energy in the United States could produce more than 2,000 times the amount of electricity currently used in the country. The limiting factor is its high cost, which could be brought down by more research and improved technology. GREEN CAREER: Geothermal engineer
Figure 16.27
lists the major advantages and disadvantages of using geothermal energy. The biggest factors limiting the widespread use of geothermal energy are the lack of hydrothermal sites with concentrations of heat high enough to make it affordable and the high cost of drilling the wells and building the plants.
Figure 16.27
Using geothermal energy for space heating and for producing electricity or high-temperature heat for industrial processes has advantages and disadvantages.
Critical Thinking:
1. Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Why or why not?
Photo: N. Minton/ Shutterstock.com
16.6aProducing Energy by Burning Solid Biomass
Energy can be produced by burning biomass, the organic matter found in plants, plant and animal wastes, and plant products such as scrap lumber. Examples of biomass fuels include wood, wood pellets, wood wastes, charcoal made from wood, and agricultural wastes such as sugarcane stalks, rice husks, and corncobs.
Most solid biomass is burned for heating and cooking. It can also be used to provide heat for industrial processes and to generate electricity. Biomass used for heating and cooking supply 10% of the world’s energy, 35% of the energy used in less-developed countries, and 95% of the energy used in the poorest countries.
Wood is a renewable resource only if it is not harvested faster than it is replenished. The problem is that about 2.7 billion people in 77 less-developed countries face a fuelwood crisis. To survive, they often meet their fuel needs by harvesting trees faster than new ones can replace them.
One solution is to plant fast-growing trees, shrubs, or perennial grasses in biomass plantations. However, repeated cycles of growing and harvesting these plantations can deplete the soil of key nutrients. It can also allow for the spread of nonnative tree species that become invasive species.
Clearing forests and grasslands to provide fuel also causes problems. It reduces biodiversity and the amount of vegetation that would otherwise capture climate-changing .
In the southeastern and northwestern United States, virgin and second-growth hardwood forests are being cleared to make wood pellets for fuel. They are mostly exported to European Union countries for use in heating factories and producing electricity. Critics call this an unsustainable practice. The pellet industry denies that they are removing whole trees and says they are using only tree branches and other wood wastes to make the pellets. However, as the volume of wood pellet production has increased, observers are seeing the destruction of large forested areas.
There is also controversy over burning forestry and crop wastes to provide heat and electricity. The supply of such wastes is not as large as some have estimated, and collecting and transporting these widely dispersed wastes to factories and utilities is difficult and expensive. In addition, crop wastes left on fields are valuable soil nutrients, and scientists argue they should be used as such.
In addition, burning wood and other forms of biomass produces and other pollutants such as fine particulates in smoke.
Figure 16.28
lists the major advantages and disadvantages of burning solid biomass as a fuel.
Figure 16.28
Burning solid biomass as a fuel has advantages and disadvantages.
Critical Thinking:
1. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Why or why not?
Top: Fir4ik/ Shutterstock.com. Bottom: Eppic/ Dreamstime.com.
16.6bUsing Liquid Biofuels to Power Vehicles
Biomass can also be converted into liquid biofuels for use in motor vehicles. The two most common liquid biofuels are ethanol (ethyl alcohol produced from plants and plant wastes) and biodiesel (produced from vegetable oils). The three biggest biofuel producers are, in order, the United States (producing ethanol from corn), Brazil (producing ethanol from sugarcane residues), and the European Union (producing biodiesel from vegetable oils).
Biofuels have three major advantages over gasoline and diesel fuel produced from oil. First, biofuel crops can be grown throughout much of the world, which can help more countries reduce their dependence on imported oil. Second, if growing new biofuel crops keeps pace with harvesting them, there is no net increase in emissions, unless existing grasslands or forests are cleared to plant biofuel crops. Third, biofuels are easy to store and transport through existing fuel networks and can be used in motor vehicles at little additional cost.
Since 1975, global ethanol production has increased rapidly, especially in the United States and Brazil. Brazil makes ethanol from bagasse, a residue produced when sugarcane is crushed. This sugarcane ethanol has a medium net energy that is 8 times higher than that of ethanol produced from corn. About 70% of Brazil’s motor vehicles run on ethanol or ethanol–gasoline mixtures produced from sugarcane grown on only 1% of the country’s arable land. This has greatly reduced Brazil’s dependence on imported oil. However, one drawback is that some forests are being cleared to grow more sugar cane to produce ethanol.
In 2017, just over 30% of the corn produced in the United States was used to make ethanol, which is mixed with gasoline to fuel cars. Studies indicate that corn-based ethanol has a low net energy because of the large-scale use of fossil fuels to produce fertilizers, grow the corn, and convert it to ethanol. This means that corn-based ethanol needs U.S. government subsidies to compete in the marketplace.
According to a study by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), producing and burning corn-based ethanol adds at least 20% more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere per unit of energy than does producing and burning gasoline. Growing corn also requires a great deal of water, and ethanol distilleries produce large volumes of wastewater.
According to another study by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), the heavily government-subsidized corn-based ethanol program in the United States has taken more than 2 million hectares (5 million acres) of land out of the soil conservation reserve, an important topsoil preservation program. Growing corn also requires large amounts of water and land—resources that are in short supply in some areas.
Furthermore, scientists warn that large-scale biofuel farming could reduce biodiversity, degrade soil quality, and increase erosion. As a result, a number of scientists and energy economists call for withdrawing government subsidies for corn-based ethanol production and reducing the current limit of no more than 10% ethanol in U.S. gasoline as mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In contrast, corn-growers and ethanol distiller have proposed allowing up to 30% ethanol in gasoline. They claim that the harmful environmental effects of corn-based ethanol are overblown and that it has many environmental and economic benefits. In 2018, the U.S. Congress supported using 15% ethanol in gasoline.
An alternative to corn-based ethanol is cellulosic ethanol, which is produced from the inedible cellulose that makes up most of the biomass of plants in the form of leaves, stalks, and wood chips. Cellulosic ethanol can be produced from tall and rapidly growing grasses such as switchgrass and miscanthus that do not require nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides. They also do not have to be replanted because they are perennial plants, and they can be grown on degraded and abandoned farmlands.
Ecologist David Tilman (
Individuals Matter 12.1
) estimates that the net energy of cellulosic ethanol is about five times that of corn-based ethanol. However, producing cellulosic ethanol is not yet affordable, and growing switchgrass or miscanthus requires even more land than does growing corn. More research is also needed to determine possible environmental impacts.
In Malaysia and Indonesia, large areas of tropical rain forests are being cleared and replaced with plantations of oil palm trees (
Figure 10.4
), which produce a fruit that contains palm oil. After the oil is extracted, about a third of it is exported to Europe to make biodiesel fuel and the rest goes into processed food and cosmetics. The clearing and burning of tropical forests to make space for these palm oil plantations eliminates the vital biodiversity of the forests. It also adds to the atmosphere, and the resulting plantations remove far less than do the forests they replace.
In a United Nations report on bioenergy, and in another study by R. Zahn and his colleagues, scientists warned that large-scale biofuel crop farming could reduce biodiversity by eliminating more forests, grasslands, and wetlands and increasing soil degradation and erosion. It would also lead to higher food prices if it becomes more profitable to grow corn for biofuel rather than for feeding livestock and people.
Another possible alternative to corn-based ethanol involves using algae to produce biofuels. As a crop, algae can grow year-round in various aquatic environments. Algae store energy as natural oils in their cells. This oil can be extracted and refined to make a product very much like gasoline or biodiesel. Currently, extracting and refining the oil from algae is too costly. More research is needed to evaluate the potential for this possible biofuel option.
Figure 16.29
compares the advantages and disadvantages of using biodiesel and ethanol liquid biofuels.
Figure 16.29
Ethanol and biodiesel biofuels have advantages and disadvantages.
Critical Thinking:
1. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Why or why not?
16.7aProducing Electricity from Falling and Flowing Water
Hydropower
is any technology that uses the kinetic energy of flowing and falling water to produce electricity. This renewable energy resource is an indirect form of solar energy because it depends on heat from the sun evaporating surface water as part of the earth’s solar-powered water cycle (
Figure 3.19
).
The most common way to harness hydropower is to build a high dam across a large river to create a reservoir (see
Chapter 13
opening photo). Some of the water stored in the reservoir is allowed to flow through large pipes at controlled rates, turning blades on a turbine that produces electricity (see
Figure 13.15
), which is distributed by the electrical grid.
Hydropower is the world’s most widely used renewable energy resource. In 2017, it produced about 17% of the world’s electricity according to the IEA. In 2017, the world’s top four producers and consumers of hydropower were, in order, China, Canada, Brazil, and the United States. In 2017, hydropower supplied about 7.5% of the electricity used in the United States and about half of the electricity used on the West Coast, mostly in Washington and California.
According to the United Nations, only 13% of the world’s potential for hydropower has been developed. Countries with the greatest potential include China, India, and several countries in South America and Central Africa. China, with the world’s largest hydropower output, plans to more than double its output during the next decade and is building or funding more than 200 hydropower dams around the world.
Hydropower is the least expensive renewable energy resource. Once a dam is up and running, its source of energy—flowing water—is free and is annually renewed by snow and rainfall unless climate change reduces the water flow in some areas with existing hydropower plants. Despite their potential, some analysts expect that the use of large-scale hydropower plants will fall slowly over the next several decades, as many existing reservoirs fill with silt and become useless faster than new systems are built.
There is also growing concern over emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from the decomposition of submerged vegetation in hydropower plant reservoirs, especially in warm climates. Scientists at Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research estimate that the world’s largest dams altogether are the single largest human-caused source of climate-changing methane. The electricity output of hydropower plants may also drop if atmospheric temperatures continue to rise and melt mountain glaciers that are a primary source of water for these plants.
It is unlikely that large new hydroelectric dams will be built in the United States because most of the best sites already have dams and because of the high cost of building new dams. In addition, there is growing controversy over the harmful effects of interrupting river flows. However, the turbines at many existing U.S. hydropower dams could be modernized and upgraded to increase their output of electricity.
Figure 16.30
lists the major advantages and disadvantages of using large-scale hydropower plants to produce electricity.
Figure 16.30
Using large dam and reservoir systems to produce electricity has advantages and disadvantages.
Critical Thinking:
1. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Why or why not?
Photo: Andrew Zarivny/ Shutterstock.com
Another way to produce electricity from flowing water is to tap into tidal energy, the energy from ocean tides and waves. In some coastal bays and estuaries, water levels can rise or fall by 6 meters (20 feet) or more between daily high and low tides. Dams can be built across the mouths of such bays and estuaries to capture the energy in these flows for hydropower. The only three large tidal energy dams currently operating are in France, Nova Scotia, and South Korea. According to energy experts, tidal power will make only a minor contribution to the world’s electricity production because sites with large tidal flows are rare.
For decades, scientists and engineers have been trying to produce electricity by tapping wave energy along seacoasts where there are almost continuous waves. However, production of electricity from tidal and wave systems is limited because of a lack of suitable sites, citizen opposition at some sites, high costs, and equipment damage from saltwater corrosion and storms.
China is building a pilot plant to evaluate the feasibility of producing electricity by using the difference in temperature between warm surface water and cold deep water in parts of the world’s tropical oceans to generate a flow of electrons. The United States experimented with this approach, called ocean thermal-energy conversion (OTEC), in the 1980s, but abandoned it because of its high cost.
16.8aWill Hydrogen Save Us?
Some scientists say that the fuel of the future is hydrogen gas . Most of their research has been focused on using fuel cells (
Figure 16.31
) that combine and oxygen gas to produce electricity while emitting nonpolluting water vapor into the atmosphere.
Figure 16.31
A fuel cell takes in hydrogen gas and separates the hydrogen atoms’ electrons from their protons. The electrons flow through wires to provide electricity, while the protons pass through a membrane and combine with oxygen gas to form water vapor. Note that this process is the reverse of electrolysis, the process of passing electricity through water to produce hydrogen fuel.
Widespread use of hydrogen as a fuel for running motor vehicles, heating buildings, and producing electricity would eliminate most of the outdoor air pollution that comes from burning fossil fuels. It would also greatly reduce climate change and ocean acidification, because its use does not increase emissions as long as the is not produced with the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power.
Turning hydrogen into a major fuel source is a challenge for several reasons. First, there is hardly any hydrogen gas in the earth’s atmosphere. can be produced by heating water or passing electricity through it; by stripping it from the methane found in natural gas and from gasoline molecules; and through a chemical reaction involving coal, oxygen, and steam. Second, hydrogen has a negative net energy because it takes more high-quality energy to produce using these methods than we get by burning it.
Third, although fuel cells are the best way to use , current versions of fuel cells are expensive. However, progress in the development of nanotechnology (see
Science Focus 14.1
) and mass production could lead to less expensive fuel cells.
Fourth, whether or not a hydrogen-based energy system produces less and outdoor air pollution than a fossil fuel system depends on how the fuel is produced. Electricity from coal-burning and nuclear power plants can be used to decompose water into and . However, this approach does not avoid the harmful environmental effects associated with using coal and the nuclear fuel cycle. Research indicates that making from coal or stripping it from methane or gasoline adds much more to the atmosphere per unit of heat generated than does burning the coal or methane directly.
Hydrogen’s negative net energy is a serious limitation. It means that this fuel will have to be heavily subsidized in order for it to compete in the open marketplace. However, this could change. Chemist Daniel Nocera has been learning from nature by studying how a leaf uses photosynthesis to produce the chemical energy used by plants and he has developed an “artificial leaf.” This credit-card-sized silicon wafer produces and when placed in a glass of tap water and exposed to sunlight. The hydrogen can be extracted and used to power fuel cells. Scaling up this or similar processes to produce large amounts of at an affordable price with an acceptable net energy over the next several decades could represent a tipping point for use of solar energy and hydrogen fuel. Doing so would help implement the solar energy principle of sustainability on a global scale.
Figure 16.32
lists the major advantages and disadvantages of using hydrogen as an energy resource. GREEN CAREER: Fuel cell technology
Figure 16.32
Using hydrogen as a fuel for vehicles and for providing heat and electricity has advantages and disadvantages.
Critical Thinking:
1. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Why or why not?
Photo: LovelaceMedia/ Shutterstock.com
16.9aShifting to a New Energy Economy
According to its proponents, a major shift to a new set of energy resources over the next 50 to 60 years (see
Section 16.1
) would have numerous environmental, health, and economic benefits.
China (which uses 20% of the world’s energy) and the United States (which uses 19% of the world’s energy) are the key players in making this shift. China has a long way to go in reducing its heavy dependence on coal and leads the world in climate-changing emissions. However, it has launched efforts to make its economy more energy efficient, build a modern smart electrical grid, and install solar hot water heaters on a large scale. China is also building wind farms and solar power plants, supporting research on better batteries and solar and wind technologies, and building and selling all-electric cars. It is also making money by producing and selling more wind turbines and solar cell panels than any other country.
The United States is also making efforts to shift to a new energy economy. However, it is falling behind China’s efforts and those of countries such as Germany, Sweden, and Denmark. This is mostly because of more than 40 years of successful efforts by powerful fossil fuel and electric utility companies to stop or slow down this energy shift because it threatens their profits.
This energy and economic transition is underway and is accelerating because market forces increasingly drive it. This is the result of the rapidly falling prices of electricity produced by the sun and wind and new energy technologies. Investors are moving rapidly into clean energy technologies. According to many scientists and energy economists, the shift to a new energy economy could be further accelerated if citizens, the leaders of emerging renewable energy companies, and energy investors demanded the following from their elected officials:
· Use full-cost pricing to include the harmful health and environmental costs of using fossil fuels and all other energy resources in their market prices.
· Tax carbon emissions. This is supported by most economists and many business leaders, and is now done in 40 countries. Use the revenue to reduce taxes on income and wealth and to promote investments and research in new energy-efficient and renewable energy technologies.
· Sharply decrease and eventually eliminate government subsidies for fossil fuel industries, which are well-established and profitable businesses.
· Mandate that a certain percentage (typically 20–40%) of the electricity generated by utility companies be from renewable resources (as is done in 24 countries and in 29 U.S. states).
· Increase government fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards for new vehicles to 43 kilometers per liter (100 miles per gallon) by 2040.
We have the creativity, wealth, and most of the technology to make the transition to a safer, more energy-efficient, and cleaner energy economy within your lifetime. With such a shift, we would greatly increase our beneficial environmental impact.
Figure 16.33
lists ways in which you can take part in the transition toward such a future.
Figure 16.33
Individuals matter: You can make a shift in your own life toward using energy more sustainably.
Critical Thinking:
1. Which three of these measures do you think are the most important ones to take? Why? Which of these steps have you already taken and which do you plan to take?
Big Ideas
· To make our economies more sustainable, we need to reduce our use of fossil fuels, especially coal, and greatly increase energy efficiency, reduce energy waste, and use a mix of renewable energy resources, especially the sun and wind.
· Making this energy shift will have important economic and environmental benefits.
· Making the transition to a more sustainable energy future will require including the harmful environmental and health costs of all energy resources in their market prices, taxing carbon emissions, and greatly increasing government subsidies and research and development for improving energy efficiency and developing renewable energy resources.
· Tying It All TogetherSaving Energy and Money and Reducing Our Environmental Impact
·
·
LianeM/ Shutterstock.com
· In the
Core Case Study, we learned that by wasting energy, we waste money and increase our harmful environmental impact. The world and the United States waste so much energy that reducing this waste by increasing energy efficiency and saving energy is the quickest, cleanest, and usually the cheapest way to provide more energy. In doing so, we would also reduce pollution and environmental degradation and slow climate change and ocean acidification.
· Over the next 50 to 60 years, we could choose to rely less on fossil fuels, especially coal, and more on increasing energy efficiency and using a mix of solar, wind, and other renewable energy resources. Making this energy shift would have enormous economic, environmental, and health benefits.
· Relying more on energy from the sun and wind helps us to implement the solar energy principle of sustainability. It also follows the chemical cycling principle of sustainability by reducing our excess inputs of into the atmosphere, which disrupt the earth’s carbon cycle and cause ocean acidification when the ocean removes some of this excess from the atmosphere. This energy shift also mimics the earth’s biodiversity principle of sustainability by reducing the environmental degradation that degrades biodiversity.
· Making this shift will require implementing the full-cost pricing principle of sustainability by including the harmful health and environmental costs of energy resources in their market prices. It will also require compromise and trade-offs in the political arena, in keeping with the win-win principle of sustainability. By making this energy shift, we would also be implementing the ethical principle of sustainability, which calls for us to leave the earth’s life support system in as good as or better than it is now.
· Tying It All TogetherSaving Energy and Money and Reducing Our Environmental Impact
·
· LianeM/ Shutterstock.com
· In the Core Case Study, we learned that by wasting energy, we waste money and increase our harmful environmental impact. The world and the United States waste so much energy that reducing this waste by increasing energy efficiency and saving energy is the quickest, cleanest, and usually the cheapest way to provide more energy. In doing so, we would also reduce pollution and environmental degradation and slow climate change and ocean acidification.
· Over the next 50 to 60 years, we could choose to rely less on fossil fuels, especially coal, and more on increasing energy efficiency and using a mix of solar, wind, and other renewable energy resources. Making this energy shift would have enormous economic, environmental, and health benefits.
· Relying more on energy from the sun and wind helps us to implement the solar energy principle of sustainability. It also follows the chemical cycling principle of sustainability by reducing our excess inputs of into the atmosphere, which disrupt the earth’s carbon cycle and cause ocean acidification when the ocean removes some of this excess from the atmosphere. This energy shift also mimics the earth’s biodiversity principle of sustainability by reducing the environmental degradation that degrades biodiversity.
· Making this shift will require implementing the full-cost pricing principle of sustainability by including the harmful health and environmental costs of energy resources in their market prices. It will also require compromise and trade-offs in the political arena, in keeping with the win-win principle of sustainability. By making this energy shift, we would also be implementing the ethical principle of sustainability, which calls for us to leave the earth’s life support system in as good as or better than it is now.
· Data Analysis
· Study the table below and then answer the questions that follow it by filling in the blank columns in the table.
|
Combined City/Highway Fuel Efficiency for 2017 Models |
||||
|
Model |
Miles per Gallon (mpg) |
Kilometers per Liter (kpl) |
Annual Liters (Gallons) of Gasoline |
Annual Emissions |
|
Chevrolet All-Electric Volt |
106 |
|||
|
Nissan All-Electric Leaf |
112 |
|||
|
Toyota Prius Prime Plug-in Hybrid |
54 | |||
|
Toyota Prius—Hybrid |
52 |
|||
|
Chevrolet Cruze |
34 |
|||
|
Honda Accord |
29 | |||
|
Jeep Patriot 4WD |
24 | |||
|
Ford F150 Pickup |
22 | |||
|
Chevrolet Camaro 8 cyl |
20 | |||
|
Ferrari F12 |
12 | |||
|
Compiled by the authors using data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Report. |
C
hapter
16
·
·
·
Core Case Study
Saving Energy and Money
·
16.1
A New Energy Transition
·
16.1a
Establishing New Energy Priorities
·
16.2
Reducing Energy Waste
·
16.2a
We Waste a Lot of Energy and Money
·
16.2b
Improving Energy Efficiency in Industries and Utilities
·
16.2c
Building a Smarter and More Energy
–
Efficient Electrical Grid
·
16.2d
Making Transportation More Energy
–
Efficient
·
16.2e
Switching to Energy
–
Efficient Vehicles
·
16.2f
Buildings That Save Energy and Money
·
16.2g
Air Conditioning and Climate Change
·
16.h
Saving Energy and Money in Existing Buil
dings
·
16.2i
Why Are We Wasting So Much Energy and Money?
·
16.2j
Relying More on Renewable Energy
·
16.3
Solar Energy
·
16.3a
Heating Buildings an
d Water with Solar Energy
·
16.3b
Cooling Buildings Naturally
·
16.3c
Concentrating Sunlight to Produce High
–
Temperature Heat and
Electricity
·
16.3d
Using Solar Cells to Produce Electricity
·
16.4
Wind Energy
·
16.4a
Using Wind to Produce Electricity
·
16.5
Geothermal Energy
·
16.5a
Tapping into
the Earth’s Internal Heat
·
16.6
Biomass Energy
·
16.6a
Producing Energy by Burning Solid Biomass
Chapter 16
Core Case StudySaving Energy and Money
16.1A New Energy Transition
16.1aEstablishing New Energy Priorities
16.2Reducing Energy Waste
16.2aWe Waste a Lot of Energy and Money
16.2bImproving Energy Efficiency in Industries and Utilities
16.2cBuilding a Smarter and More Energy-Efficient Electrical Grid
16.2dMaking Transportation More Energy-Efficient
16.2eSwitching to Energy-Efficient Vehicles
16.2fBuildings That Save Energy and Money
16.2gAir Conditioning and Climate Change
16.hSaving Energy and Money in Existing Buildings
16.2iWhy Are We Wasting So Much Energy and Money?
16.2jRelying More on Renewable Energy
16.3Solar Energy
16.3aHeating Buildings and Water with Solar Energy
16.3bCooling Buildings Naturally
16.3cConcentrating Sunlight to Produce High-Temperature Heat and
Electricity
16.3dUsing Solar Cells to Produce Electricity
16.4Wind Energy
16.4aUsing Wind to Produce Electricity
16.5Geothermal Energy
16.5aTapping into the Earth’s Internal Heat
16.6Biomass Energy
16.6aProducing Energy by Burning Solid Biomass
· Chapter Introduction
· Core
Case Study
Mercury’s Toxic Effects
· 17.1
Health Hazards and Risk Assessment
· 17.1a
Risk and Hazards
· 17.2
Biological Hazards
· 17.2a
Infectious Diseases
· 17.2b
Viral Diseases and Parasites
· 17.2c
Reducing the Incidence of Infectious Diseases
· 17.3
Chemical Hazards
· 17.3a
Some Chemicals Can Cause Cancers, Mutations, and Birth Defects
· 17.3b
Some Chemicals Can Affect Our Immune and Nervous Systems
· 17.3c
Some Chemicals Affect the Endocrine System
· 17.4
Evaluating Risks from Chemical Hazards
· 17.4a
Many Factors Determine the Toxicity of Chemicals
· 17.4b
Methods for Estimating Toxicity
· 17.4c
Are Trace Levels of Toxic Chemicals Harmful?
· 17.4d
Why Do We Know So Little about the Harmful Effects of Chemicals?
· 17.4e
Pollution Prevention and the Precautionary Principle
· 17.4f
Implementing Pollution Prevention
· 17.5
Perceiving and Avoiding Risks
· 17.5a
The Greatest Health Risks Come from Poverty, Gender, and Lifestyle Choices
· 17.5b
Estimating Risks from Technologies
· 17.5c
Most People Do a Poor Job of Evaluating Risks
· 17.5d
Guidelines for Evaluating and Reducing Risk
· Tying It All Together
Mercury’s Toxic Effects and Sustainability
·
Chapter Review
·
Critical Thinking
·
Doing Environmental Science
·
Data Analysis
17.1aRisk and Hazards
A
risk
is the probability of suffering harm from a hazard that can cause injury, disease, death, economic loss, or damage. Scientists often state the probability of a risk in terms such as, “The lifetime probability of developing lung cancer from smoking one pack of cigarettes per day is 1 in 250.” This means that 1 of every 250 people who smoke a pack of cigarettes every day will likely develop lung cancer over a typical lifetime (usually considered to be 70 years). Probability can also be expressed as a percentage, as in a 30% chance of developing a certain type of cancer. The greater the probability of harm, the greater the risk.
Risk assessment
uses statistical methods to estimate how much harm a particular hazard can cause to human health or to the environment. It helps us compare risks and establish priorities for avoiding or managing risks.
Risk management
involves deciding whether and how to reduce a particular risk to a certain level and at what cost.
Figure 17.2
summarizes how risks are assessed and managed.
Figure 17.2
Risk assessment and risk management are used to estimate the seriousness of various risks and to help reduce such risks.
Critical Thinking:
1. What is an example of how you have applied this process in your daily living?
Many people take avoidable risks every day. For example, they might drive or ride in a car without a seatbelt or text while driving. They might choose to eat foods that are high in cholesterol or that have too much sugar. They might drink too much alcohol or smoke.
No one can live a risk-free life, but we can reduce exposure to risks. When assessing risks, it is important to understand how serious the risks are and whether the benefits of certain activities outweigh the risks.
Five major types of hazards pose risks to human health:
· Biological hazards from more than 1,400
pathogens
, or microorganisms that can cause disease in other organisms. Examples are bacteria, viruses, parasites, protozoa, and fungi.
· Chemical hazards from certain harmful chemicals in the air, water, soil, food, and human-made products (
Core Case Study
).
· Natural hazards such as fires, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes.
· Cultural hazards such as unsafe working conditions, criminal assault, and poverty.
· Lifestyle choices such as smoking, making poor food choices, and not getting enough exercise.
Critical Thinking
1. Think of a hazard from each of these categories that you may have faced recently. Which one was the most threatening?
17.2aInfectious Diseases
An
infectious disease
is a disease caused by a pathogen such as a bacterium, virus, or parasite invading the body and multiplying in its cells and tissues.
Bacteria
are single-cell organisms that are found everywhere and that can multiply rapidly on their own. Most bacteria are harmless and some are beneficial. However, those that cause diseases such as strep throat or tuberculosis are harmful.
A
virus
is a pathogen that invades a cell and takes over its genetic machinery to copy itself and spread throughout the body. Viruses can cause diseases such as flu and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). A
parasite
is an organism that lives on or inside another organism and feeds on it. Parasites range in size from one-celled organisms called protozoa to worms that are visible to the naked eye. They can cause an infectious disease such as malaria.
A
transmissible disease
is an infectious disease that can be transmitted from one person to another. Some transmissible diseases are bacterial diseases such as tuberculosis, many ear infections, and gonorrhea. Others are viral diseases such as the common cold, flu, and AIDS. Transmissible diseases can be spread through air, water, and food. They can also be transmitted by insects such as mosquitoes and ticks and by body fluids such as feces, urine, blood, semen, and droplets sprayed by sneezing and coughing.
A
nontransmissible disease
is caused by something other than a living organism and does not spread from one person to another. Nontransmissible diseases include cardiovascular (heart and blood vessel) diseases, most cancers, asthma, and diabetes.
In 1900, infectious disease was the leading cause of death in the world. Since then, and especially since 1950, the incidences of infectious diseases and the death rates from them have dropped significantly. This has been achieved mostly by a combination of improved sanitation, better health care, the use of antibiotics to treat bacterial diseases, and the development of vaccines to prevent the spread of some viral diseases. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), during the last decade vaccines have saved more than 10 million lives.
Despite the declining risk of harm from infectious diseases, they remain serious health threats, especially in less-developed countries. A large-scale outbreak of an infectious disease in an area or a country is called an epidemic. A global epidemic, like tuberculosis (see Case Study that follows) or AIDS is called a pandemic.
Figure 17.3
shows the annual death tolls from the world’s seven deadliest infectious diseases.
Figure 17.3
Leading causes of death by infectious diseases in the world.
Data Analysis:
1. How many people die from all seven of these infectious diseases every year? Every day?
(Compiled by the authors using data from the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
Case Study
The Global Threat from Tuberculosis
Tuberculosis (TB) is an ancient and highly contagious bacterial infection that destroys lung tissue. Many TB-infected people do not appear to be sick and most of them do not know they are infected. Left untreated, each person with active TB typically infects a number of other people. Without treatment, about half of the people with active TB die from bacterial destruction of their lung tissue (
Figure 17.4
).
Figure 17.4
Colorized red areas in this chest X-ray show where TB bacteria have destroyed tissue in both lungs.
Puwadol Jaturawutthichai/ Shutterstock.com
In 2017, there were about 10 million new cases of TB and 1.7 million people died from TB, according to the WHO. Several factors account for the spread of TB since 1990. One is a lack of TB screening and control programs, especially in less-developed countries where more than 90% of the new cases occur. However, researchers are developing new and easier ways to detect TB and to monitor its effects (
Individuals Matter 17.1
).
A second problem is that most strains of the TB bacterium have developed genetic resistance to the majority of the effective antibiotics (
Science Focus 17.1
). In addition, population growth, urbanization, and air travel have greatly increased person-to-person contacts. A person with active TB might infect several people during a single bus or plane ride. TB is spreading faster in areas where large numbers of poor people crowd together, especially in the rapidly growing slums of less-developed countries.
Slowing the spread of the disease requires early identification and treatment of people with active TB, especially those with a chronic cough, which is the primary way in which the disease is spread from person to person. However, because many people do not show symptoms of TB, they are unaware that they are infected and can infect other people. Treatment with a combination of four inexpensive drugs can cure 90% of individuals with active TB, but to be effective, the drugs must be taken every day for 6–9 months and these drugs can have serious side effects. Symptoms often disappear after a few weeks of treatment, so many patients think they are cured and stop taking the drugs. This can allow TB to recur, possibly in drug-resistant forms, and to spread to others.
A deadly form of tuberculosis, known as multidrug-resistant TB, is on the rise. About 480,000 new cases occur every year, according to the WHO. Fewer than half of those cases are cured each year, and only with the best available medical care costing more than $500,000 per person on average. This form of TB kills about 150,000 people every year. Because this disease cannot be treated effectively with antibiotics, victims must be isolated from the rest of society, some permanently, and they pose a threat to health workers.
Since 1993, TB infection rates have been declining in the United States. In 2017, there were 9,098 new cases of TB in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Science Focus 17.1
Genetic Resistance to Antibiotics and Antifungals
Antibiotics are chemicals that can kill bacteria. They have played an important role in the increase in life expectancy since 1950 in the United States and in many other countries.
In 2014, the WHO issued a report warning that the age of antibiotics may be ending because many disease-causing bacteria are becoming genetically resistant to the antibiotics that have long been used to kill the bacteria. The WHO considers antibiotic resistance one of the biggest threats of this century and the World Economic Forum calls it a “potential disaster” for the global economy and human health.
One reason for this antibiotic resistance is the astounding reproductive rate of bacteria. Some bacteria can grow from a population of 1 to well over 16 million in 24 hours. As a result, they can quickly become genetically resistant to an increasing number of antibiotics through natural selection (see
Figure 4.14
). They pass such genetic resistance to their offspring and research indicates that some bacteria can transfer such resistance to others of the same strain as well as to different strains of bacteria.
Another major factor in the rise of such genetic resistance, also called antibiotic resistance, is the widespread use of antibiotics on livestock raised in feedlots (see
Figure 12.10
) and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs, see
Figure 12.11
). Antibiotics are used to control disease and to promote growth among dairy and beef cattle, poultry, and hogs that are raised in large numbers in crowded conditions. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has estimated that about 80% of all antibiotics used in the United States are added to the feed of healthy livestock. According to the CDC, about 20% of antibiotic-resistant illness in humans is linked to food, especially food from livestock treated with antibiotics.
Another factor that can promote genetic resistance is the overuse of antibiotics for colds, flu, and sore throats, many of which are caused by viruses that do not respond to treatment with antibiotics. In many countries, antibiotics are available without a prescription, which promotes their excessive and unnecessary use. Another factor is the spread of bacteria around the globe by human travel and international trade. The growing use of antibacterial hand soaps and other antibacterial cleansers could also be promoting antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Such cleaners do not work any better than thorough hand washing, according to the FDA. Research by scientists Paul Dawson and Brian Sheldon indicates that three major sources of infectious bacteria are lemon slices on the rims of water glasses, menus, and hot-air hand dryers in restrooms that blow bacteria into the bathroom air.
Every major disease-causing bacterium has developed strains that resist at least 1 of the roughly 200 antibiotics. According to the CDC, antibiotic resistance causes over 2 million illness and 23,000 deaths in the United States each year. Furthermore, bacteria called superbugs that resist all but a few antibiotics are emerging. In 2018, researchers at the Washington School of Medicine estimated that infectious diseases from superbugs kill 162,000 Americans a year. In addition, 1 of every 25 U.S. hospital patients picks up such an infection while in the hospital. A 2-year British government study led by economist Jim O’Neil estimated that globally, antibiotic-resistant superbugs kill at least 700,000 people per year and by 2050, could kill as many as 10 million people a year.
For example, a bacterium known as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, commonly known as MRSA (or “mersa”), has become resistant to most common antibiotics. MRSA can cause severe pneumonia, a vicious rash, and a quick death if it gets into the bloodstream.
MRSA can be found in hospitals, nursing homes, schools, gyms, and college dormitories. It can be spread through skin contact, unsanitary use of tattoo needles, and contact with poorly laundered clothing and shared items such as towels, bed linens, athletic equipment, and razors. Another worrisome superbug found in hospitals is Clostridium difficile, or C. diff, which causes severe diarrhea and can live on surfaces such as bed rails and medical equipment. It causes about 250,000 infections and 14,000 deaths per year in the United States, according to the CDC.
Health officials warn that we could be moving into a post-antibiotic era of higher death rates. No new class of antibiotics has been developed since 1984, mostly because drug companies lose millions of dollars developing new antibiotics that are used for only a short time to treat infections. As a result, in 2017, only 15 of the world’s 50 largest drug companies were developing new antibiotics.
However, in 2015, researchers led by Kim Lewis discovered a new antibiotic called teixobactin, extracted from bacteria that live in dirt. In laboratory mice, it proved to be a powerful drug against tuberculosis, MRSA, and other infections. It works by breaking down a microbe’s outer cell walls—an approach that makes it difficult for bacteria to develop resistance to it. It will take years of testing to learn whether teixobactin offers a possible solution to the serious problem of antibiotic resistance.
In 2019, researchers and the CDC warned about Candida auris (or C. auris), a fungus that preys upon people with weakened immune systems. It is spreading around the world and is especially dangerous because it is genetically resistant to most anti-fungal medications. It is difficult to identify and kills nearly half of the patients who become infected within 90 days.
Critical Thinking
1. What are three steps that you think we could take to slow the rate at which disease-causing bacteria are developing resistance to antibiotics and fungi are developing genetic resistance to antifungals?
Individuals Matter 17.1
Hayat Sindi: Health Science Entrepreneur
Hayat Sindi /National Geographic Image Collection
Growing up in a home of humble means in Saudi Arabia, Hayat Sindi was determined to get an education, become a scientist, and do something for humanity. She was the first Saudi woman to be accepted at Cambridge University. She also earned a PhD in biotechnology at Cambridge and she taught in Cambridge’s international medical program. She was named a National Geographic Explorer and a United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Goodwill Ambassador for science education.
As a visiting scholar, Sindi worked with a team of scientists at Harvard University and co-founded a nonprofit company called Diagnostics for All to bring low-cost health monitoring to remote, poor areas of the world. The Harvard team sought to develop simple and inexpensive diagnostic tools that could be used to detect certain illnesses and medical problems in remote areas.
One such tool is a piece of paper the size of a postage stamp, with tiny channels and wells etched into it. A technician loads the channels with diagnostic chemicals and puts a drop of a patient’s blood, urine, or saliva on the paper. The fluid travels through the channels where the chemicals react with the fluid to change its color. Results show up in a minute. They can easily be read to diagnose different medical infections and conditions such as declining liver function, which can result from taking drugs to combat TB, hepatitis, and HIV/AIDS. The test can be conducted by a technician with minimal training and requires no electricity, clean water, or special equipment. After the paper is used, it can be burned on the spot to prevent the spread of any infectious agents.
Dr. Sindi has a passion for inspiring women and girls, particularly those in the Middle East, to purse science. As she explains, “I want all women to believe in themselves and know they can transform society.”
Learning from Nature
A shark’s skin is covered with tiny bumps that somehow help it to avoid bacterial infections. Scientists are using this information to create antibacterial films with a bumpy structure that could reduce human skin infections.
One reason why infectious disease is still a serious threat is that many disease-carrying bacteria have developed genetic immunity to widely used antibiotics (Science Focus 17.1). In addition, many disease-transmitting species of insects such as mosquitoes have become resistant to widely used pesticides such as DDT that once helped to control their populations.
Another factor that will likely keep infectious diseases high on the list of environmental health threats is climate change. Many scientists warn that warmer temperatures will likely allow some infectious diseases—especially those spread by mosquitoes and ticks that breed more rapidly in warmer climates—to spread to and thrive in formerly cooler parts of the world. An example is dengue fever. It is the world’s most widespread mosquito-borne viral disease, with nearly 400,000 new infections and thousands of deaths a year. West Nile virus, Zika virus, and yellow fever are also spread by mosquitoes. Other examples are Lyme disease and Rocky Mountain spotted fever, which are spread by ticks.
In 2016, melting permafrost in Siberia exposed the frozen carcass of a reindeer infected with deadly anthrax. When the reindeer carcass thawed out it released anthrax bacteria, which killed a boy, infected 20 other people, and killed more than 2,000 present-day reindeer.
17.2bViral Diseases and Parasites
2 Million
The annual number of U.S. citizens who get infections that cannot be treated with any known antibiotics
Antibiotics do not affect viruses and some viruses are fatal. The biggest viral killer is the influenza or flu virus because it often leads to fatal pneumonia. The flu virus can be transmitted to others by body fluids or airborne droplets released when an infected person coughs or sneezes. Influenza often leads to fatal pneumonia. Flu viruses are transmitted so easily that an especially potent flu virus could spread around the world in only a few months. This could cause a pandemic and kill millions of people.
The second biggest viral killer is the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV (see
Case Study
that follows). According to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV, in 2017, HIV infected about 1.8 million people and 940,000 people died from AIDS-related diseases (down from 2 million in 2005). HIV is transmitted by unsafe sex, the sharing of needles by drug users, infected mothers who pass the virus to their babies before or during birth, and exposure to infected blood.
Case Study
The Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic
The spread of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), caused by HIV infection, is a major global health threat. This virus cripples the immune system and leaves the body vulnerable to infections such as TB and rare forms of cancer such as Kaposi’s sarcoma. A person infected with HIV can live a normal life, especially with proper but costly treatment. In time, however, HIV can develop into AIDS, which can be fatal. An estimated 20% of all people infected with HIV are not aware of the infection and can spread the virus for years before being diagnosed.
Since HIV was identified in 1981, this viral infection has spread around the globe. According to UNAIDS, in 2017, about 36.9 million people worldwide (about 1.1 million in the United States, according to the CDC) were living with HIV. In 2017, there were about 1.8 million new cases of AIDS (about 39,500 in the United States)—half of them in people ages 15 to 24.
Between 1981 and 2016, about 386 million people died of AIDS-related diseases, according to UNAIDS. According to the CDC, the U.S. death toll for the same period was more than 693,000. In 2016, AIDS killed about 940,000 million people (about 6,000 in the United States)—down from a peak of 2.3 million in 2005. AIDS has reduced the life expectancy of the 1 million people living in sub-Saharan Africa, the area south of the Sahara Desert, from 62 to 47 years on average, and to 40 years in the seven countries most severely affected by AIDS.
Deaths of people ages 15 to 49 affect the population age structures in several African countries, including Botswana (
Figure 17.6
), where 23% of all people between ages 15 and 49 were infected with HIV in 2017. The premature deaths from AIDS of many young, productive teachers, health-care workers, farmers, and other adults in these countries has contributed to declines in education, health care, food production, economic development, and political stability. They have also led to large numbers of orphaned children.
Figure 17.6
In Botswana 23% of all people ages 15–49 were infected with HIV in 2017. This figure shows two projected age structures for Botswana’s population in 2020—one including the possible effects of the AIDS epidemic (red bars), and the other not including those effects (yellow bars).
Critical Thinking:
1. How might this affect Botswana’s economic development?
(Compiled by the authors using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, UN Population Division, and World Health Organization)
The treatment for HIV infection includes a combination of antiviral drugs that can slow the progress of the virus. However, such drugs cost too much to be used widely in the less-developed countries where HIV infections are widespread.
The third largest viral killer is the hepatitis B virus (HBV), which damages the liver. According to the WHO, it kills more than 780,000 people each year. It is spread in the same ways that HIV is spread.
Ebola is another deadly virus. One must contact the bodily fluids of an infected animal or person to get the virus. Within 4 to 10 days of infection, the victim typically develops sudden fever, sore throat, muscle pain, and headache. Advanced symptoms can include coughing, chest pain, diarrhea, internal bleeding, vomiting, chest pain, and bleeding gums.
According to the WHO, the Ebola virus kills an average of 50% of those it infects within 8 days. A victim’s best hope is a strong immune response with intensive supportive care in a hospital, including continual rehydration.
In 2016, an experimental Ebola vaccine was developed that gives 100% protection against the disease and is being evaluated by regulatory agencies. The chances of Ebola spreading in the United States and other more-developed countries are slim because hospitals, infection controls, and safe burial procedures are much more readily available than they are in many less-developed countries.
Widespread screening of people for the Ebola virus can help reduce its spread (
Figure 17.5
). However, those who care for patients are at a much higher-than-average risk of getting the disease, no matter where they are.
Figure 17.5
These health-care workers are screening a woman in China for the Ebola virus. They must wear special suits to avoid all direct contact between their own skin and anyone who might be infected with the virus.
plavevski/ Shutterstock.com
Another deadly virus is the West Nile virus, which is transmitted to humans by the bite of a common mosquito that is infected when it feeds on birds that carry the virus. In the United States, according to the CDC, between 1999 and 2018, the virus caused severe illnesses in nearly 51,000 people and killed about 2,000 people. About 45% of all infections affect the brain and spinal cord, and such infections account for 93% of all deaths due to West Nile virus.
Another harmful virus is the Zika virus, which since 2010, has spread in 42 countries, most in Latin America. It is spread by the bite of a mosquito species that also spreads yellow fever and dengue fever. It can be transmitted through sex, and a pregnant woman can pass the Zika virus to her fetus. The mosquito species that spreads Zika is widespread in Latin America and, by 2016, had been found in 30 U.S. states, most of them warmer southern states. The disease can spread rapidly in less-developed countries with warm climates, where many houses have no window or door screens. The mosquitoes breed in standing water found near such homes.
The Zika virus has little effect on most adults. The main health concern is a link between pregnant women carrying the virus and premature births or birth defects in some of the babies, including a shrunken head and brain and blindness.
Scientists and health officials say that there is little risk of a major outbreak in the United States because of the widespread use of window and door screens, air conditioning, and mosquito control programs. Pregnant women or women trying to get pregnant are advised not to travel to countries where the Zika virus exists and is spreading.
Scientists estimate that throughout history, more than half of all infectious diseases were originally transmitted to humans from wild or domesticated animals. The development of such diseases has spurred the growth of the new field of ecological medicine (
Science Focus 17.2
). GREEN CAREER: Ecological medicine
Science Focus 17.2
Ecological Medicine: Tracking Infectious Diseases from Animals to Humans
Scientists estimate that throughout history, more than half of all infectious diseases were originally transmitted to humans from wild or domesticated animals. Examples of such diseases and their origins include the following:
· HIV—moves from primates (apes and monkeys) to humans
· Lyme disease—moves from wild deer and mice through ticks to humans
· Ebola—thought to have come from bats
· West Nile virus—transmitted from birds via mosquito bites
· Avian flu—a severe flu strain from birds
· Plague—moved from rats to rat fleas to humans
· Dengue fever—spread through mosquitoes and thought to have come from apes
· African sleeping sicknesses—moves from wild and domestic grazing animals through tsetse flies to humans
In order, the three largest sources of diseases likely to infect people are bats, primates, and rodents (rats and mice).
The development of such infectious diseases has spurred the growth of the relatively new field of ecological medicine. It is devoted to tracking down infectious disease connections between animals and humans and investigating other factors, such as climate change, that can affect populations of the wild species involved.
Scientists in this field have identified several human practices that encourage the spread of diseases among animals and people:
· The clearing or fragmenting of forests to make way for settlements, farms, and expanding cities.
· The hunting of wild game for food. In parts of Africa and Asia, local people who kill monkeys and other animals for bushmeat regularly come in contact with primate blood and can be exposed to a simian (ape or monkey) strain of HIV, which causes AIDS.
· The illegal international trade in wild species.
· Industrialized meat production. For example, a deadly form of E. coli bacteria sometimes spreads from livestock to humans when people eat meat contaminated by animal manure. Salmonella bacteria found on animal hides and in poorly processed, contaminated meat can cause food-borne disease. Each year, 48 million Americans get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die from preventable food-borne diseases.
In the United States, the push of suburban development into forests has increased the chances of many suburbanites becoming infected with Lyme disease. The bacterium that causes this disease lives in the bodies of deer and white-footed mice and is passed between these two animals and to humans, mostly by certain types of ticks (
Figure 17.A
, left). It is the most common tick-borne disease in the United States. Left untreated, Lyme disease can cause debilitating arthritis, heart disease, and nervous disorders.
Figure 17.A
, right, shows the rash spot that appears.
Figure 17.A
A deer tick (left) can carry the Lyme disease bacterium from a deer or mouse to a human. The right figure shows the rash that can appear due to a Lyme disease infection.
Dariusz Majgier/ Shutterstock.com; AnastasiaKopa/ Shutterstock.com
According to the CDC, there are about 30,000 new cases of Lyme disease each year in the United States. However, the agency estimates that the annual number of new cases is more like 300,000 because of the difficulty in diagnosing the disease. Lyme disease is rarely fatal and is treated with antibiotics. However, it can cause joint pain, severe headaches, fever, heart palpitations, and fatigue that, for unknown reasons, can last long after treatment.
A number of scientists are looking at the connections between climate change and the spread of infectious diseases, especially malaria, meningitis, dengue fever, and West Nile virus. With warmer temperatures, they are concerned that the mosquitoes and other insects that spread these diseases will increase their ranges from tropical areas to temperate areas of the globe that are getting warmer.
Critical Thinking
1. If you were in the field of ecological medicine, where would you put your greatest efforts in researching this problem? Explain.
Each of us can greatly reduce our chances of getting infectious diseases by washing our hands frequently and thoroughly (for at least 20 seconds each time). We can greatly slow the spread of infectious diseases by not sharing personal items such as razors or towels, and by keeping cuts and scrapes covered with bandages until healed. It also helps to avoid contact with people who have infectious diseases and to avoiding touching your eyes, nose, or mouth before washing your hands.
Another growing health hazard is infectious diseases caused by parasites, especially malaria (see the second
Case Study
that follows).
Case Study
Malaria—The Spread of a Deadly Parasite
Malaria is a life-threatening blood disease that is transmitted to humans by a mosquito bite. About 3.2 billion people—42% of the world’s population—are at risk of getting malaria (
Figure 17.7
). Most of them live in poor African countries. People traveling to malaria-prone areas are also at risk because there is no vaccine that can prevent this disease.
Figure 17.7
About 42% of the world’s population lives in areas in which malaria is prevalent. As the earth warms, malaria may spread to some temperate areas such as the southern half of the United States.
(Compiled by the authors using data from the World Health Organization and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)
Malaria is caused by a Plasmodium parasite transmitted to humans through the bite of a female Anopheles mosquito (
Figure 17.8
) infected with the parasite. The mosquito bites an infected person, picks up the parasite, and passes it to the next person it bites. The parasites multiply and destroy many of the victim’s red blood cells. This causes intense fever, chills, drenching sweats, severe abdominal pain, vomiting, and headaches. Without treatment, severe cases of malaria can be fatal.
Figure 17.8
The bite of a female Anopheles mosquito infected with the Plasmodium parasite can lead to malaria in its victim.
Sanimfocus/ Shutterstock.com
In 2016, according to the WHO, malaria killed about 445,000 people and infected about 216 million people. Some experts contend this total could be much higher, because public health records are incomplete in many areas. More than 90% of all malaria victims live in sub-Saharan Africa. Most cases involve children younger than age 5. On average, a child under age 5 dies from malaria every minute. Many children who survive suffer brain damage or impaired learning ability.
Over the course of human history, malarial protozoa probably have killed more people than all the wars ever fought. The spread of malaria slowed during the 1950s and 1960s, a time when widespread draining of swamps and marshes, mostly to grow crops, sharply reduced mosquito-breeding areas. These areas were also sprayed with insecticides, and drugs were used to kill the parasites in victims’ bloodstreams.
Since 1970, malaria has come roaring back. Most of the species of mosquitoes that transmit malaria have become genetically resistant to most insecticides and the parasites have become genetically resistant to common antimalarial drugs. Climate change is expected to spread malaria by allowing malaria-carrying mosquitoes to spread from tropical areas to warming temperate areas.
Connections
Deforestation and Malaria
The clearing and development of tropical forests has led to the spread of malaria among workers and the settlers who follow them. One study found that a 5% loss of tree cover in one part of Brazil’s Amazon forest led to a 50% increase in malaria in that study area. The researchers hypothesized that deforestation creates partially sunlit pools of water that make ideal breeding ponds for malaria-carrying mosquitoes.
Scientists have made progress in developing a malaria vaccine, but currently no effective vaccine is available. Another approach is to provide poor people in malarial regions with free or inexpensive insecticide-treated bed nets (
Figure 17.9
) and window screens. Between 2000 and 2014, the percentage of Africa’s population sleeping under mosquito nets increased from 2% to more than 50% saving 6.2 million lives, according to the WHO. Children can also be given zinc and vitamin A supplements to boost their resistance to malaria.
Figure 17.9
This baby in Senegal, Africa, is sleeping under an insecticide-treated mosquito net to reduce the risk of being bitten by malaria-carrying mosquitoes.
Olivier Asselin/Alamy Stock Photo
17.2cReducing the Incidence of Infectious Diseases
According to the WHO, the percentage of all deaths worldwide resulting from infectious diseases dropped by at least a third between 1970 and 2016, primarily because a growing number of children were immunized against major infectious diseases. Between 1990 and 2016, the estimated annual number of children younger than age 5 who died from infectious diseases dropped from nearly 12 million to 5.4 million, according to the WHO. This is important progress but it still amounts to an average of 15,000 under-five deaths per day in 2016.
Learning from Nature
The African resurrection plant completely dries out during annual droughts and revives itself during the rainy season. Scientists hope to learn how they do this and use this information to store and transport vaccines throughout the world without the need for refrigeration.
Figure 17.1
0
lists measures that could help prevent or reduce the incidence of infectious diseases—especially in less-developed countries. The WHO has estimated that implementing the solutions listed in
Figure 17.10
could save the lives of as many as 4 million children younger than age 5 each year. Improving sanitation and access to clean drinking water can also reduce infectious diseases. According to the WHO, poor sanitation and unsafe drinking water kill about 1.4 million children under age 5 per year—an average of more than 3,800 deaths per day. GREEN CAREER: Infectious disease prevention
Figure 17.10
Ways to prevent or reduce the incidence of infectious diseases, especially in less-developed countries.
Critical Thinking:
1. Which three of these approaches do you think are the most important? Why?
Top: Omer N Raja/ Shutterstock.com. Bottom: Rob Byron/ Shutterstock.com.
Connections
Drinking Water, Latrines, and Infectious Diseases
More than a third of the world’s people—2.6 billion—do not have sanitary bathroom facilities. Nearly 1 billion get their water for drinking, washing, and cooking from sources polluted by animal or human feces. A key to reducing sickness and premature death due to infectious disease is to focus on providing simple latrines and access to safe drinking water.
17.3aSome Chemicals Can Cause Cancers, Mutations, and Birth Defects
There is growing concern about the effects of toxic chemicals on human health. A
toxic chemical
is an element or compound that can cause temporary or permanent harm or death to humans. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has listed arsenic, lead, mercury (Core Case Study), vinyl chloride (used to make PVC plastics), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs; see the Case Study that follows) as the top five toxic substances in terms of human health.
Case Study
PCBs—A Toxic Legacy from the Past
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a class of more than 200 chlorine-containing organic compounds that are very stable and nonflammable. They exist as oily liquids or solids but, under certain conditions, they can enter the air as a vapor. Between 1929 and 1977, PCBs were widely used as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and insulators in electrical transformers and capacitors. They also were ingredients in a variety of products including paints, fire retardants in fabrics, preservatives, adhesives, and pesticides.
The U.S. Congress banned the domestic production of PCBs in 1977 after research showed that they could cause liver cancer and other cancers in test animals. Studies also showed that pregnant women exposed to PCBs gave birth to underweight babies who eventually suffered permanent neurological damage, sharply lower-than-average IQs, and long-term growth problems.
Production of PCBs has also been banned in most other countries, but the potential health threats from these chemicals will be with us for a long time. For decades, PCBs entered the air, water, and soil as they were manufactured, used, and disposed of, as well as through accidental spills and leaks. Because PCBs break down very slowly in the environment, they can travel long distances in the air before landing far from where they were released. Because they are fat-soluble, PCBs can also be biologically magnified in food chains and food webs (
Figure 17.11
).
Figure 17.11
Biological magnification of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in an aquatic food chain in the Great Lakes.
As a result, PCBs are now found almost everywhere—in the air, soil, lakes, rivers, fish, birds, most human bodies, and even the bodies of polar bears in the Arctic. According to the EPA, about 70% of all the PCBs made in the United States are still in the environment.
There are three major types of potentially toxic agents.
Carcinogens
are chemicals, some types of radiation, and certain viruses that can cause or promote cancer. Cancer is a disease in which malignant cells multiply uncontrollably and create tumors, or masses of abnormal cells. Tumors can damage the body and often lead to premature death. Examples of carcinogens are arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, gamma radiation, PCBs, radon, ultraviolet (UV) radiation, vinyl chloride, and certain chemicals in tobacco smoke.
Typically, 10 to 40 years can pass between the initial exposure to a carcinogen and the appearance of detectable cancer symptoms. This time lag helps explain why many healthy teenagers and young adults have trouble believing that their habits such as smoking and poor diet could lead to some form of cancer before they reach age 50.
Mutagens are the second major type of toxic substance.
Mutagens
include chemicals or forms of radiation that cause or increase the frequency of mutations, or changes, in the DNA molecules found in cells. Most mutations cause no harm, but some can lead to cancers and other disorders. For example, nitrous acid , formed by the digestion of nitrite preservatives in foods, can cause mutations linked to increases in stomach cancer in people who consume large amounts of processed foods and wine containing such preservatives. Harmful mutations occurring in reproductive cells can be passed on to offspring and to future generations.
Teratogens
, a third type of toxic agent, are chemicals that harm a fetus or embryo or cause birth defects. Ethyl alcohol, an ingredient in alcoholic beverages is a teratogen. Women who drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy increase their risk of having babies with low birth weight and a number of physical, developmental, behavioral, and mental problems. Other teratogens are mercury (Core Case Study), lead, PCBs, formaldehyde, benzene, phthalates, and PCP (angel dust).
17.3bSome Chemicals Can Affect Our Immune and Nervous Systems
Since the 1970s, research on wildlife and laboratory animals along with some studies of humans suggest that long-term exposure to some chemicals in the environment can disrupt important body systems, including immune and nervous systems.
The immune system consists of specialized cells and tissues that protect the body against disease and harmful substances. For example, it forms antibodies, or specialized proteins, that detect and destroy invading agents. Some chemicals such as arsenic and methylmercury (
Core Case Study), can weaken the human immune system. This leaves the body vulnerable to attacks by allergens and infectious bacteria, viruses, and protozoa.
Neurotoxins are natural and synthetic chemicals that can harm the human nervous system, which includes the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves. Neurotoxins can cause behavioral changes, learning disabilities, attention-deficit disorder, paralysis, and death. Examples of neurotoxins are PCBs, arsenic, lead, and certain pesticides.
Methylmercury (
Core Case Study) is an especially dangerous neurotoxin because it persists in the environment and, like DDT and PCBs, can be biologically magnified in food chains and food webs (
Figure 17.12
). According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, predatory fish such as tuna, orange roughy, swordfish, mackerel, grouper, and sharks can have mercury concentrations in their bodies that are 10,000 times higher than the levels in the water around them.
Figure 17.12
Movement of different forms of toxic mercury from the atmosphere into an aquatic ecosystem where it is biologically magnified in a food chain.
Critical Thinking:
1. What is your most likely exposure to mercury?
In one study, the EPA found that almost half of the fish tested in 500 lakes and reservoirs across the United States had levels of mercury that exceeded safe levels (Figure 17.1). Similarly, a study by the U.S. Geological Survey of nearly 300 streams across the United States found mercury-contaminated fish in all of the streams surveyed, with one-fourth of the fish exceeding the safe levels determined by the EPA.
The symptoms of mercury poisoning in adults include poor balance and coordination, muscle weakness, tremors, memory loss, insomnia, hearing loss, loss of hair, and loss of peripheral vision. The EPA estimates that about 1 of every 12 women of childbearing age in the United States has enough mercury in her blood to harm a developing fetus.
Figure 17.13
lists ways to prevent or reduce human inputs of mercury (Core Case Study) into the environment.
Figure 17.13
Ways to prevent or control inputs of mercury (Core Case Study) into the environment from human sources—mostly coal-burning power plants and incinerators.
Critical Thinking:
1. Which two of these solutions do you think are the most important? Why?
Top: Mark Smith/ Shutterstock.com. Bottom: tuulijumala/ Shutterstock.com
17.3cSome Chemicals Affect the Endocrine System
The endocrine system is a complex network of glands that release tiny amounts of hormones into the bloodstreams of humans and other vertebrate animals. Very low levels of these chemical messengers (often measured in parts per billion or parts per trillion) regulate bodily systems that control sexual reproduction, growth, development, learning ability, and behavior. Each hormone has a unique molecular shape that allows it to attach to certain parts of cells called receptors, and to transmit a chemical message (
Figure 17.14
).
Figure 17.14
Each type of hormone has a unique molecular shape that allows it to attach to specially shaped receptors on the surface of, or the inside of, a cell and to transmit its chemical message (left). Molecules of hormonally active agents (center and right), have shapes similar to those of natural hormones, allowing them to attach to the hormone molecules and disrupt endocrine systems.
Molecules of certain pesticides and other synthetic chemicals, called hormonally active agents (HAAs) or endocrine disrupters, have shapes similar to those of natural hormones (Figure 17.14). This allows them to attach to the receptors for natural hormones and disrupt endocrine systems of humans and some other animals.
Examples of HAAs include some herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, dioxins, lead, phthalates, various fire retardants, and mercury (Core Case Study). Some HAAs, including bisphenol A, or BPA (
Science Focus 17.3
) act as hormone imposters, or hormone mimics. They are chemically similar to estrogens (female sex hormones) and can disrupt the endocrine system by attaching to estrogen receptor sites. Other HAAs, called hormone blockers, disrupt the endocrine system by preventing natural hormones such as androgens (male sex hormones) from attaching to their receptors.
Science Focus 17.3
The Controversy over BPA
The estrogen mimic bisphenol A (BPA) serves as a hardening agent in certain plastics that are used in a variety of products. They include some baby bottles, sipping cups, and pacifiers, as well as some reusable water bottles, sports drink and juice bottles, microwave dishes, and food storage containers. BPA is also used to make some dental sealants, well as the plastic resins that line all food and soft drink cans and cans holding baby formulas and foods. This type of liner allows containers to withstand extreme temperatures, keeps canned food from interacting with the metal in the cans, prevents rust in the cans, and helps to preserve the canned food. People can also be exposed to BPA by touching thermal paper used to produce some cash register receipts.
A CDC study indicated that 93% of Americans age 6 and older had trace levels of BPA in their urine. These levels were well below the acceptable level set by the EPA. However, that level was established in the late 1980s, when little was known about the potential effects of BPA on human health.
Research indicates that the BPA in plastics can leach into water or food when the plastic is heated to high temperatures, microwaved, or exposed to acidic liquids. Harvard University Medical School researchers found a 66% increase in BPA levels in the urine of participants who drank from polycarbonate bottles regularly for one week.
By 2013, more than 90 published studies by independent laboratories had found a number of significant adverse effects on test animals from exposure to very low levels of BPA. These effects include brain damage, early puberty, decreased sperm quality, certain cancers, heart disease, liver damage, impaired immune function, type 2 diabetes, hyperactivity impaired learning, impotency in males, and obesity in test animals.
On the other hand, 12 studies funded by the chemical industry found no evidence or only weak evidence of adverse effects from low-level exposure to BPA in test animals. In 2008, the FDA concluded that BPA in food and drink containers was not a health hazard. In 2015, the European Food Safety Authority agreed, concluding that BPA is not appearing in people’s body systems at high enough levels to cause harm.
However, France has banned BPA from the lining of all food cans. Canada, the European Union, and six U.S. states have banned the sale of plastic baby bottles that contain BPA. In 2012, the FDA banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and sipping cups.
Consumers now have more choices, since most makers of baby bottles, sipping cups, and sports water bottles offer BPA-free alternatives. Many consumers are avoiding plastic containers with a #7 recycling code (which indicates that BPA can be present). People are also using powdered infant formula instead of liquid formula from metal cans, and choosing glass bottles, mugs, and food containers instead of those made of plastic. In addition, some people use glass, ceramic, or stainless steel coffee mugs instead of plastic cups. In 2018, scientists created a metal-can lining that does not have the harmful effects of BPA. However, it will take decades for it to be widely used in the food-and-beverage packing business.
Many manufacturers have replaced BPA with bisphenol S (BPS). However, studies indicate that BPS can have effects similar to those of BPA, and BPS is now showing up in human urine at levels similar to those of BPA.
There are substitutes for the plastic resins containing BPA or BPS that line most food cans in the United States. However, these replacements are more expensive, and the potential health effects of some chemicals they contain need to be evaluated.
Critical Thinking
1. Should plastics that contain BPA or BPS be banned from use in all children’s products? Explain. Should such plastics be banned from use in the liners of canned food containers? Explain. What are the alternatives?
Estrogen mimics and hormone blockers can have a number of effects on sexual development and reproduction. Numerous studies involving wild animals, laboratory animals, and humans suggest that the males of species that are exposed to hormonal disruption generally become more feminized.
There is also growing concern about another group of HAAs that affect hormones generated by the thyroid gland. These pollutants, called thyroid disrupters, can cause growth, weight, brain, and behavioral disorders. Some of these chemicals are found in nonstick surfaces on cookware and are used as flame retardants added to certain fabrics, furniture, plastics, and mattresses. They have been linked to thyroid disease, some cancers, and birth defects.
In 2013, the FDA indicated that the chemicals triclosan and triclocarban, widely used in antibacterial soaps and some deodorants, are likely hormone disrupters and could be contributing to bacterial resistance to antibiotics. The FDA also said that there is no evidence that using these chemicals is any more effective in preventing bacterial infections than is thoroughly washing your hands with plain soap and water. Since 2000, several European countries have restricted the use of triclosan in consumer products.
Some scientists are increasingly concerned about certain HAAs called phthalates. These chemicals are used to make plastics more flexible and to make cosmetics easier to apply to the skin. They are found in a variety of products, including many detergents, perfumes, cosmetics, baby powders, body lotions for adults and babies, sunscreens, hair sprays, deodorants, soaps, nail polishes, and shampoos for adults and babies, and the coatings on many time-release drugs. They are also found in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic products such as soft vinyl toys and vinyl gloves, teething rings, blood storage bags, intravenous (IV) drip bags, shower curtains, and some plastic food and drink containers.
Exposure of laboratory animals to high doses of various phthalates has caused birth defects, kidney and liver diseases, immune system suppression, and abnormal sexual development in these animals. Studies have linked exposure of human babies to phthalates with early puberty in girls and sperm damage in men. The European Union and at least 14 other countries have banned several phthalates. However, scientists, government regulators, and manufacturers in the United States are divided on the risks of phthalates to human health and reproductive systems.
Concerns about BPA, phthalates, and other HAAs show how difficult it can be to assess the potential harmful health effects from exposure to very low levels of various chemicals. Resolving these uncertainties will take decades of research. Some scientists argue that as a precaution during this period of research, people should sharply reduce their exposure to products that contain potentially harmful hormone disrupters, especially in products frequently used by pregnant women, infants, young children, and teenagers (
Figure 17.15
).
Figure 17.15
Individuals matter: Ways to reduce your exposure to hormone disrupters.
Critical Thinking:
1. Which three of these steps do you think are the most important ones to take? Why?
17.4aMany Factors Determine the Toxicity of Chemicals
Toxicology
is the study of the harmful effects of chemicals on humans and other organisms.
Toxicity
is a measure of the ability of a substance to cause injury, illness, or death to a living organism. A basic principle of toxicology is that any synthetic or natural chemical can be harmful if ingested or inhaled in a large enough quantity
.
However, the critical question is: “What level of exposure to a particular toxic chemical will cause harm?”
This is a difficult question to answer because of the many variables involved in estimating the effects of human exposure to chemicals. A key factor is the
dose
, the amount of a harmful chemical that a person has ingested, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin at any one time.
Age is another variable that impacts how a person is affected by exposure to a particular chemical. Toxic chemicals usually have a greater effect on elderly adults. Fetuses, infants, and children are also more vulnerable to exposure to toxic chemicals than adults. Current research suggests that exposure to chemical pollutants in the womb may be related to increasing rates of autism, childhood asthma, and learning disorders.
Toxicity also depends on genetic makeup, which determines an individual’s sensitivity to a particular toxin. People vary widely in their degrees of sensitivity to chemicals (
Figure 17.16
), and some are sensitive to a number of toxins—a condition known as multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS). Another factor is how well the body’s detoxification systems, including the liver, lungs, and kidneys, are working.
Figure 17.16
Individuals in a human population can vary in how sensitive they are to a particular dose of a toxic chemical.
Several other variables can affect the level of harm caused by a chemical. One is its solubility—whether a chemical can be dissolved in water or in oily substances. Water-soluble toxins can move throughout the environment and get into water supplies, as well as the aqueous solutions that surround our bodies’ cells. Oil- or fat-soluble toxins can penetrate the membranes that surround our cells, because these membranes allow similar but non-toxic oil-soluble chemicals to pass through them as part of their normal functioning. Thus, oil- or fat-soluble toxins can accumulate in body tissues and cells.
Another factor is a substance’s persistence, or resistance to breaking down. Many chemicals, including DDT and PCBs, were used widely because they are not easily broken down in the environment. This means that they are more likely to remain in the body and have long-lasting harmful health effects.
Bioaccumulation and biological magnification (see
Figure 9.14
) can also play a role in toxicity. Animals that eat higher on the food chain are more susceptible to the effects of fat-soluble toxic chemicals because of the magnified concentrations of the toxins in their bodies. Examples of chemicals that can be biomagnified include DDT, PCBs (Figure 17.11), and methylmercury (Core Case Study).
The health damage resulting from exposure to a chemical is called the
response
. An acute effect is an immediate or rapid harmful reaction ranging from dizziness to death. A chronic effect is a permanent or long-lasting consequence of exposure to a single dose or to repeated lower doses of a harmful substance. Kidney and liver damage are examples of chronic effects.
Natural and synthetic chemicals can be safe or toxic. In fact, many synthetic chemicals, including many of the medicines we take, are quite safe if used as intended, while many natural chemicals such as lead and mercury (Core Case Study) are deadly.
Case Study
Protecting Children from Toxic Chemicals
In one study, the Environmental Working Group analyzed umbilical cord blood from 10 randomly selected newborns in U.S. hospitals. Of the 287 chemicals detected in that study, 180 have been shown to cause cancers in humans or animals, 217 have damaged the nervous systems of test animals, and 208 have caused birth defects or abnormal development in test animals. Scientists do not know what harm, if any, might be caused by the very low concentrations of these chemicals found in the infants’ blood.
However, more recent science has caused some experts to suggest that exposure to chemical pollutants in the womb may be related to increasing rates of autism, childhood asthma, and learning disorders. In 2009, researchers for the first time found a connection between the exposure of pregnant women to air pollutants and lower IQ scores in their children as they grew. A team of researchers led by Frederica Perera of Columbia University reported that children exposed to high levels of air pollution before birth scored 4–5 points lower, on average, in IQ tests than did children with less exposure.
Infants and young children are more susceptible to the effects of toxic substances than are adults, for three major reasons. First, they generally breathe more air, drink more water, and eat more food per unit of body weight than do adults. Second, they are exposed to toxins in dust and soil when they put their fingers, toys, and other objects in their mouths. Third, children usually have less well-developed immune systems and body detoxification processes than adults have. Fetuses are also highly vulnerable to trace amounts of toxic chemicals such as methylmercury (Core Case Study) that they can receive from their mothers.
The EPA has proposed that in determining any risk, regulators should assume that children have a 10-times higher risk factor than adults have. Some health scientists suggest that to be on the safe side, we should assume that this risk for children is 100 times the risk for adults.
Critical Thinking
1. Do you think environmental regulations should require that the allowed levels of exposure to toxic chemicals for children be 100 times lower than those for adults? Explain your reasoning.
17.4bMethods for Estimating Toxicity
Chemicals vary widely in their toxicity (
Table 17.1
). Some can cause serious harm or death after a single very low dose. For example, swallowing a few drops of pure nicotine (found in e-cigarettes) would make you very sick, while a teaspoon of it could kill you. Other chemicals such as water or table sugar cause such harm only at dosages so huge that it is nearly impossible to get enough into the body to cause injury or death. Most chemicals fall between these two extremes.
Table 17.1
Toxicity Ratings and Average Lethal Doses for Humans
|
Toxicity Rating |
LD50 (milligrams per kilogram of body weight) |
Average Lethal Dose |
Examples |
|
Supertoxic |
Less than 5 |
Less than 7 drops |
nerve gases, botulism toxin, mushroom toxin, dioxin (TCDD) |
|
Extremely toxic |
5–50 |
7 drops to 1 teaspoon |
potassium cyanide, heroin, atropine, parathion, nicotine |
|
Very toxic |
50–500 |
1 teaspoon to 1 ounce |
mercury salts, morphine, codeine |
|
Moderately toxic |
500–5,000 |
1 ounce to 1 pint |
lead salts, DDT, sodium hydroxide, sodium fluoride, sulfuric acid, caffeine, carbon tetrachloride |
|
Slightly toxic |
5,000–15,000 |
1 pint to 1 quart |
ethyl alcohol, household cleansers, soaps |
|
Essentially nontoxic |
15,000 or greater |
More than 1 quart |
water, glycerin, table sugar |
The most widely used method for determining toxicity involves tests with live laboratory animals. Scientists expose a population of such animals to measured doses of a specific substance under controlled conditions. Mice and rats are widely used because, as mammals, their systems function somewhat similarly to human systems. They are also small and can reproduce rapidly under controlled laboratory conditions.
Scientists estimate the toxicity of a chemical by determining the effects of various doses of the chemical on test organisms and plotting the results in a
dose-response curve
(
Figure 17.17
). One approach is to determine the lethal dose—the dose that will kill an animal. A chemical’s median lethal dose (LD50) is the dose that can kill 50% of the animals (usually rats and mice) in a test population within a given time period, usually expressed in milligrams of the chemical per kilogram of body weight (mg/kg). Then scientists use mathematical models to extrapolate, or estimate, the effects of the chemical on humans, based on the lab testing results.
Figure 17.17
Dose-response curves. Scientists estimate the toxicity of various chemicals by determining how a chemical’s harmful effects change as the dose increases. Some chemicals behave according to the nonthreshold model (left curve) with harmful effects increasing with the dose. Others behave according to the threshold model (center curve), with harmful effects not occurring until a threshold dose is reached. Still others are unconventional in how they behave (right curve) with the harmful effects decreasing after a certain dose level.
There are three general types of dose-response curves. With the nonthreshold dose-response model (Figure 17.17, left), any dosage of a toxic chemical causes harm that increases with the dosage. With the threshold dose-response model (Figure 17.17, center), a certain level, or threshold, of exposure to the chemical must be reached before any detectable harmful effects occur, presumably because the body can repair the damage caused by low dosages of some substances. With the third type, called the unconventional model (Figure 17.17, right), the harmful effects increase with dosage to a certain point and then begin decreasing.
Establishing which of the three models in
Figure 17.17 applies at low dosages is extremely difficult and controversial. To be on the safe side, scientists often choose the nonthreshold dose-response model. High dosages are used to reduce the number of test animals, usually mice or rats (
Figure 17.18
) needed, obtain results quickly, and lower costs. Using low dosages would require running tests on millions of laboratory animals for many years, in which case chemical companies and government agencies could not afford to test most chemicals. For the same reasons, scientists usually use mathematical models to extrapolate the effects of low-dose exposures based on the measured results of high-dose exposures. Then they extrapolate these results from test organisms to humans as a way of estimating LD50 values for acute toxicity.
Figure 17.18
Laboratory worker injecting a white rat to learn about the toxicity of a chemical.
Oleksandr Lysenko/ Shutterstock.com
Animal testing has drawbacks. Tests typically take two to five years to complete and involve hundreds to thousands of test animals. They can cost as much as $2 million per substance tested. Some tests can be painful to the test animals and can harm or kill them. Animal welfare groups want to limit or ban the use of test animals and ensure that they are treated humanely.
Some scientists challenge the validity of extrapolating data from laboratory animals to humans. They argue that important differences exist between humans and the test animals. Other scientists say that such tests and models can work fairly well (especially for revealing cancer risks) when the correct experimental animal is chosen or when a chemical is toxic to several different test-animal species.
More humane methods for toxicity testing are available and are being increasingly used in place of live animal testing. They include making computer simulations and using individual animal cells, instead of whole, live animals. High-speed robot testing devices can now screen the biological activity of more than 1 million compounds a day to help determine their possible toxic effects.
The problems with estimating toxicities in the laboratory get even more complicated. In real life, each of us is exposed to a variety of chemicals, some of which can interact in ways that decrease or enhance their individual effects. Toxicologists already have great difficulty in estimating the toxicity of a single substance. Evaluating mixtures of potentially toxic substances, determining how they interact, and deciding which of them are the most harmful can be overwhelming from a scientific and economic standpoint. For example, just studying the interactions among 3 of the 500 most widely used industrial chemicals would take 20.7 million experiments—a physical and financial impossibility.
Critical Thinking
1. Should laboratory-bred mice, rats, and other animals be used to determine toxicity and other effects of chemicals? Why or why not?
Scientists use several other methods to get information about the harmful effects of chemicals on human health. For example, case reports, usually made by physicians, provide information about people who have suffered adverse health effects or died after exposure to a chemical. Most case reports are not reliable for estimating toxicity because the actual dosage and the exposed person’s health status are usually unknown. However, such reports can provide clues about environmental hazards and suggest the need for laboratory investigations.
Epidemiological studies can also be useful. These studies compare the health of people exposed to a particular chemical (the experimental group) with the health of a similar group of people not exposed to the agent (the control group). The goal is to determine whether the statistical association between exposure to a toxic chemical and a health problem is strong, moderate, weak, or undetectable.
Four factors can limit the usefulness of epidemiological studies. First, in many cases, too few people have been exposed to high enough levels of a toxic agent to detect statistically significant differences. Second, the studies usually take a long time. Third, closely linking an observed effect with exposure to a particular chemical is difficult because people are exposed to many different toxic agents throughout their lives and can vary in their sensitivity to such chemicals (
Figure 17.16). Fourth, epidemiological studies cannot evaluate hazards from new technologies or chemicals to which people have not yet been exposed.
17.4cAre Trace Levels of Toxic Chemicals Harmful?
Almost everyone who lives in a more-developed country is exposed to potentially harmful chemicals (
Figure 17.19
) in their environment. Many of these chemicals build up to trace levels in their blood and in other parts of their bodies. CDC studies have found that the blood of an average American contains traces of 212 different chemicals, including potentially harmful chemicals such as arsenic and BPA.
Figure 17.19
A number of potentially harmful chemicals are found in many homes.
Critical Thinking:
1. Does the fact that we do not know much about the long-term harmful effects of these chemicals make you more likely or less likely to minimize your exposure to them? Why or why not?
(Compiled by the authors using data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and New York State Department of Health.)
Should we be concerned about trace amounts of various synthetic chemicals in our air, water, food, and bodies? In most cases, we simply do not know because there are too few data to determine the effects of exposures to low levels of these chemicals.
Some scientists view exposures to trace amounts of synthetic chemicals with alarm, especially because of their potential long-term effects on the human body. Other scientists view the threats from such exposures as minor. They point out that average life expectancy has been increasing in most countries, especially more-developed countries, for decades. Other scientists contend that the concentrations of such chemicals are so low that they are harmless. All agree that there is a need for much more research on the effects of trace levels of synthetic chemicals on human health.
17.4dWhy Do We Know So Little about the Harmful Effects of Chemicals?
All methods for estimating toxicity levels and risks have serious limitations, but they are all that we have. According to risk assessment expert Joseph V. Rodricks, “Toxicologists know a great deal about a few chemicals, a little about many, and next to nothing about most.”
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimates that only 10% of the more than 85,000 registered synthetic chemicals in commercial use have been thoroughly screened for toxicity. Only 2% have been adequately tested to determine whether they are carcinogens, mutagens, or teratogens. Hardly any of the chemicals in commercial use have been screened for possible damage to the human nervous, endocrine, and immune systems.
Lack of data and high costs make regulation difficult. In fact, federal and state governments do not supervise the use of nearly 99.5% of the commercially available chemicals in the United States. The problem is much worse in less-developed countries.
Most scientists call for more research on the health effects of trace levels of synthetic chemicals. To minimize harm and take into account the uncertainty about health effects, scientists and regulators typically set allowed levels of exposure to toxic substances at 1/100th or even 1/1,000th of the estimated harmful levels.
17.4ePollution Prevention and the Precautionary Principle
We know little about the potentially toxic chemicals around us and inside of us and estimating their effects is very difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. So where does this leave us?
Some scientists and health officials, especially those in European Union countries, push for much greater emphasis on pollution prevention. To them chemicals that are known or suspected to cause significant harm should not be released into the environment at pollutant levels. Preventing such pollution requires finding harmless or less harmful substitutes for toxic and hazardous chemicals. It also requires recycling toxic chemicals within production processes to keep them from reaching the environment, as companies such as DuPont and 3M have been doing (see the
Case Study that follows).
Case Study
Pollution Prevention Pays
The U.S.-based 3M Company makes 60,000 different products in 100 manufacturing plants around the world. In 1975, 3M began a Pollution Prevention Pays (3P) program. Since then, it has reformulated some of its products, redesigned equipment and processes, and reduced its use of hazardous raw materials. It has also recycled and reused more waste materials and sold some of its potentially hazardous but still useful wastes as raw materials to other companies. As of 2019, this program had prevented more than 2.1 million metric tons (2.3 million tons) of pollutants from reaching the environment and saved the company $1.9 billion.
The 3M 3P program has been successful largely because employees are rewarded if the projects they come up with eliminate or reduce a pollutant; reduce the amount of energy, materials, or other resources required in production; or save money through reduced pollution control costs, lower operating costs; or increase sales of new or existing products. Employees at 3M have now completed more than 13,000 3P projects.
Since 1990, a growing number of companies have adopted similar pollution and waste prevention programs that have led to cleaner production. They are learning that, in addition to saving money by preventing pollution and reducing waste production, they have a much easier job of complying with pollution laws and regulations.
Pollution prevention is a strategy for implementing the precautionary principle. According to this principle, when there is substantial preliminary evidence that an activity, technology, or chemical substance can harm humans, other organisms, or the environment, decision makers should take measures to prevent or reduce such harm, rather than waiting for more conclusive scientific evidence.
There is controversy over how far we should go in using the precautionary principle. Those who favor a precautionary approach argue that a person or company, proposing to introduce a new chemical or technology should bear the burden of establishing its safety. This would require two major changes in the way we evaluate and manage risks. First, we would assume that new chemicals and technologies could be harmful until scientific studies show otherwise. Second, the existing chemicals and technologies that appear to have a strong chance of causing harm would be removed from the market until their safety is established. For example, after decades of research revealed the harmful effects of lead, especially on children, lead-based paints and leaded gasoline were phased out in most developed countries.
Many manufacturers and businesses contend that widespread application of the precautionary approach and requiring pollution prevention would make it too expensive and almost impossible to introduce any new chemical or technology. They note that there is always some uncertainty in any scientific assessment of risk.
However, applying the precautionary principle can be good for business. It reduces health risks for employees and society, frees businesses from having to deal with pollution regulations, and reduces the threat of lawsuits from injured parties. It also focuses companies on finding solutions to pollution problems that are based on prevention rather than cleanup. Businesses could also improve their images by operating in this manner.
Finally, proponents argue that society has an ethical responsibility to reduce known or potentially serious risks to human health, to the environment, and to future generations. This is in keeping with the ethical principle of sustainability.
17.5cMost People Do a Poor Job of Evaluating Risks
Most of us are not good at assessing the relative risks from the hazards that we encounter. Many people deny or shrug off the high-risk chances of death or injury from the voluntary activities they enjoy. These include risks of death by smoking (1 in 250 by age 70 for a pack-a-day smoker), motorcycling (1 in 1,000), hang gliding (1 in 1,250), and driving (1 in 3,300 without a seatbelt and 1 in 6,070 with a seatbelt).
Indeed, the most dangerous thing that many people do each day is to drive or ride in a car. Yet some of these same people may be terrified about their chances of being killed by getting pneumonia from the flu (a 1 in 130,000 chance), a nuclear power plant accident (1 in 200,000), West Nile virus (1 in 1 million), a lightning strike (1 in 3 million), Ebola virus (1 in 4 million), a commercial airplane crash (1 in 9 million), snakebite (1 in 36 million), or shark attack (1 in 281 million).
Five factors can cause people to see a technology or a product as being more or less risky than experts judge it to be. The first factor is fear. Research shows that fear causes people to overestimate risks and to worry more about catastrophic risks than they do about common, everyday risks. Studies show that people tend to overestimate numbers of deaths caused by tornadoes, floods, fires, homicides, cancer, and terrorist attacks, and to underestimate death tolls from flu, diabetes, asthma, heart attack, stroke, and automobile accidents.
The second factor clouding risk evaluation is the degree of control individuals have in a given situation. Many people have a greater fear of things over which they do not have personal control. For example, some individuals feel safer driving their own car for long distances than traveling the same distance on a plane, but look at the numbers. The risk of dying in a car accident in the United States while using a seatbelt is 1 in 6,070, whereas the risk of dying in a U.S. commercial airliner crash is about 1 in 9 million.
The third factor influencing risk evaluation is whether a risk is catastrophic or chronic. People usually are more frightened by news of catastrophic accidents such as a plane crash than of a cause of death such as smoking, which has a much higher death toll spread out over time.
Fourth, some people have optimism bias, the belief that risks that apply to other people do not apply to them. For example, they may be upset when they see others driving erratically while talking on a cell phone or texting but believe they can do so without impairing their own driving ability.
A fifth factor affecting risk analysis is that many of the risky things we do are highly pleasurable and give instant gratification, while the potential harm from such activities comes later. Examples are smoking cigarettes and eating too much food.
·
Chapter Introduction
·
Core Case Study
Mercury’s Toxic Effects
·
17.1
Health Hazards and Risk Assessment
·
17.1a
Risk and Hazards
·
17.2
Biological Hazards
·
17.2a
Infectious Diseases
·
17.2b
Viral Diseases and Parasites
·
17.2c
Reducing the Incidence of Infectious Diseases
·
17.3
Chemical Hazards
·
17.3a
Some Chemicals Can Cause Cancers, Mutations, and Birth Defects
·
17.3b
Some Chemicals Can Affect
Our Immune and Nervous Systems
·
17.3c
Some Chemicals Affect the Endocrine System
·
17.4
Evaluating Risks from Chemical Hazards
·
17.4a
Many Factors Determine the Toxicity of
Chemicals
·
17.4b
Methods for Estimating Toxicity
·
17.4c
Are Trace Levels of Toxic Chemicals Harmful?
·
17.4d
Why Do We Know So Little about the Harmful Effects of Chemicals?
·
17.4e
Pollution Prevention and the Precautionary Principle
·
17.4f
Implementing Pollution Prevention
·
17.5
Perceiving and Avoiding Risks
·
17.5a
The Greatest Health Risks Come from Poverty, Gender, and Lifestyle
Choices
·
17.5b
Estimating Risks from Technologies
·
17.5c
Most People
Do a Poor Job of Evaluating Risks
·
17.5d
Guidelines for Evaluating and Reducing Risk
·
Tying It All Together
Mercury’s Toxic Effects and Sustainability
·
Chapter Review
·
Critical Thinking
·
Doing Environmental Science
·
Data Analysis
Chapter Introduction
Core Case StudyMercury’s Toxic Effects
17.1Health Hazards and Risk Assessment
17.1aRisk and Hazards
17.2Biological Hazards
17.2aInfectious Diseases
17.2bViral Diseases and Parasites
17.2cReducing the Incidence of Infectious Diseases
17.3Chemical Hazards
17.3aSome Chemicals Can Cause Cancers, Mutations, and Birth Defects
17.3bSome Chemicals Can Affect Our Immune and Nervous Systems
17.3cSome Chemicals Affect the Endocrine System
17.4Evaluating Risks from Chemical Hazards
17.4aMany Factors Determine the Toxicity of Chemicals
17.4bMethods for Estimating Toxicity
17.4cAre Trace Levels of Toxic Chemicals Harmful?
17.4dWhy Do We Know So Little about the Harmful Effects of Chemicals?
17.4ePollution Prevention and the Precautionary Principle
17.4fImplementing Pollution Prevention
17.5Perceiving and Avoiding Risks
17.5aThe Greatest Health Risks Come from Poverty, Gender, and Lifestyle
Choices
17.5bEstimating Risks from Technologies
17.5cMost People Do a Poor Job of Evaluating Risks
17.5dGuidelines for Evaluating and Reducing Risk
Tying It All TogetherMercury’s Toxic Effects and Sustainability
Chapter Review
Critical Thinking
Doing Environmental Science
Data Analysis
·
Chapter Introduction
·
Core
Case Study
Los Angeles Air P
ollution
·
18
.1
The Atmosphere
·
18.1a
The Atmosphere Consists of Several Layers
·
18.1b
The Troposphere and Stratosphere
·
18.2
Outdoor Air Pollution
·
18.2a
Natural and Human Sources of Air Pollution
·
18.2b
Major Outdoor Air Pollutants
·
18.2c
Industrial Smog
·
18.2d
Factors Affecting Outdoor Air Pollution
·
18.3
Acid Deposition
·
18.3a
Acid Deposition
·
18.3b
Harmful Effects of Acid Deposition
·
18.3c
Reducing Acid Deposition
·
18.4
Indoor Air Pollution
·
18.4a
Indoor Air Pollution Is a Serious Problem
·
18.5
Health Effects of Air Pollution
·
18.5a
Overwhelming Our Body’s Natural Air Pollution Defenses
· 18
.5b
Air Pollution Is a Big Killer
·
18.6
Reducing Air Pollution
·
18.6a
Laws and Regulations
·
18.6b
Using the Marketplace to Reduce Outdoor Air P
ollution
·
18.6c
Reducing Outdoor Air Pollution
·
18.6d
Reducing Indoor Air Pollution
·
18.7
Ozone Layer Depletion
·
18.7a
Chemical Threats to the Ozone Layer
·
18.7b
Why Does Ozone Depletion Matter?
·
18.7c
Reversing Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
·
Tying It All Together
Los Angeles Air Pollution and Sustainability
·
Chapter Review
·
Critical Thinking
·
Doing Environmental Science
·
Data Analysis
18.1aThe Atmosphere Consists of Several Layers
Life exists under a thin blanket of gases surrounding the earth, called the atmosphere. It is divided into several spherical layers defined mostly by temperature differences (
Figure 18.2
). Our focus in this chapter is on the atmosphere’s two innermost layers: the troposphere and the stratosphere.
Figure 18.2
Natural capital: The earth’s atmosphere is a dynamic system that has four layers. The average temperature of the atmosphere varies with altitude (red line) and with differences in the absorption of incoming solar energy.
Critical Thinking:
1. Why do you think most of the planet’s air is in the troposphere?
An important atmospheric variable is density, the number of gas molecules per unit of air volume. It varies throughout the atmosphere because gravity pulls harder on gas molecules near the earth’s surface than it does on molecules high up in the atmosphere. This means that lower layers have more gases (more weight) in them than upper layers do, and are more densely packed with molecules. Thus, the air we breathe at sea level has a higher density than the air we would inhale on top of a high mountain.
Another important atmospheric variable is atmospheric pressure—the force, or mass, per unit area of a column of air. This force is caused by the continuous bombardment of a surface such as your skin by the molecules in air. Atmospheric pressure varies with density. It decreases with altitude (see black line in
Figure 18.2) because there are fewer gas molecules at higher altitudes. The density and pressure of the atmosphere are important because they play major roles in the weather.
8.1bThe Troposphere and Stratosphere
About 75–80% of the earth’s air mass is found in the
troposphere
, the atmospheric layer closest to the earth’s surface (Figure 18.2). This layer extends about 17 kilometers (11 miles) above sea level at the equator and 6 kilometers (4 miles) above sea level over the poles. If the earth were the size of an apple, this lower layer containing the air we breathe would be no thicker than the apple’s skin.
Take a deep breath. About 99% of the volume of air you inhaled consists of two gases: nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%). The remainder is 0.93% argon (Ar), 0.040% carbon dioxide , smaller amounts of water vapor, dust and soot particles, and other gases, including methane , ozone , and nitrous oxide .
Several gases in the troposphere, including , , , and , are called greenhouse gases because they absorb and release energy that warms the troposphere and the earth’s surface. Without this natural greenhouse effect, the earth would be too cold for life as we know it to exist. Rising and falling air currents, winds, and concentrations of and other greenhouse gases in the troposphere play major roles in the planet’s short-term weather and long-term climate.
The atmosphere’s second layer is the stratosphere, which extends from about 17 to about 48 kilometers (from 11 to 30 miles) above the earth’s surface (Figure 18.2). The stratosphere contains less matter than the troposphere but its chemical composition is similar, with two notable exceptions. The stratosphere has a much lower volume of water vapor and a much higher concentration of ozone .
Most of the atmosphere’s ozone is concentrated in a portion of the stratosphere called the
ozone layer
, found roughly 17–26 kilometers (11–16 miles) above sea level (Figure 18.2). Most of the ozone in this layer is produced when oxygen molecules interact with ultraviolet (UV) radiation emitted by the sun.
The UV filtering effect of ozone in the lower stratosphere acts as a “global sunscreen” that keeps about 95% of the sun’s harmful UV radiation from reaching the earth’s surface. The stratosphere’s ozone layer allows life to exist on land and helps to protect us from sunburn, skin and eye cancers, cataracts, and damage to our immune systems. It also prevents much of the oxygen in the troposphere from being converted to ground-level ozone, a harmful air pollutant. In other words, preserving the life-sustaining stratospheric ozone layer should be one of humanity’s top priorities.
18.2aNatural and Human Sources of Air Pollution
Air pollution
is the presence of chemicals in the atmosphere in concentrations high enough to harm organisms, ecosystems, or human-made materials, or to alter climate. Almost any chemical in the atmosphere can become a pollutant if it occurs in a high enough concentration. The effects of air pollution range from annoying to lethal.
Air pollutants come from natural and human sources. Natural sources include wind-blown dust, solid and gaseous pollutants from wildfires and volcanic eruptions, and volatile organic chemicals released by some plants. Most natural air pollutants spread out over the globe and become diluted or are removed by chemical cycles, precipitation, and gravity. However, pollutants emitted by volcanic eruptions and forest fires can temporarily reach harmful levels.
Most human inputs of outdoor air pollutants occur in industrialized and urban areas where people, cars, and factories are concentrated. These pollutants are generated mostly by the burning of fossil fuels in power plants and industrial facilities (stationary sources) and in motor vehicles (mobile sources). Thus, urban areas such as Los Angeles (
Core Case Study
) normally have higher outdoor air pollution levels than rural areas. However, prevailing winds can spread long-lived primary and secondary air pollutants from urban and industrial areas to the countryside and to other urban areas. In fact, satellite measurements show that long-lived air pollutants from anywhere on the planet can circle the entire globe in about two weeks (
Science Focus 18.1
).
Science Focus 18.1
Atmospheric Brown Clouds
Air pollution is no longer viewed as primarily a localized urban problem. Annual satellite images and studies by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have found massive, dark brown clouds of pollution—called atmospheric brown clouds. At various times, these clouds stretch across much of India (
Figure 18.A
), Bangladesh, and the industrial heart of China, as well as parts of the western Pacific Ocean.
Figure 18.A
Air pollution in Delhi, India. In 2017, breathing the air in Delhi was the equivalent of smoking more than two packs of cigarettes a day.
Saurav022/ Shutterstock.com
In most years, these clouds cover an area about the size of the continental United States. They contain small particles of dust, smoke, and ash resulting from wind erosion due to drought and from the clearing and burning of forests for planting crops. They also contain particles of soot, or black carbon, and toxic metals such as mercury and lead. These various particles enter the atmosphere from wildfires, the burning of wood and animal dung for heat and cooking, diesel engine exhaust, motor vehicle exhaust, ocean ships burning heavy oil, coal-burning power and industrial plants, metal smelters, and waste incinerators.
These enormous pollution clouds can move across the Asian continent within three to four days. Satellites have tracked the spread of pollutants from the atmospheric brown clouds over northern China across the Pacific Ocean to the West Coast of the United States. Measurements made by atmospheric scientists show that large portions of the particulate matter, soot, and toxic mercury in the skies above Los Angeles, California (
Core Case Study), can be traced to China.
Researchers estimate that the atmospheric brown clouds are directly linked to the deaths of more than 380,000 people a year in China and India. They also affect global weather patterns. Long-term studies on the effects of the brown clouds on weather were carried out by an international team of scientists led by V. Ramanathan of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Their findings include decreases in the summer monsoon rainfall in some areas, a north-south shift in rainfall patterns in eastern China, accelerated melting of Himalayan glaciers that feed major Asian rivers, and increased levels of ozone in the lower atmosphere in many areas. These weather effects have helped reduce water supplies and crop yields and have damaged human health.
The researchers also found that soot and some of the other particles that fall onto Himalayan glaciers from the atmospheric brown clouds absorb sunlight and heat the air above those glaciers. This soot also decreases the ability of the glaciers to reflect sunlight back into space. The glaciers then absorb more solar energy and experience increased melting. This adds to the warming of the air above them, which in turn further increases the rate of glacial melting in a runaway positive feedback cycle (see
Chapter 2
). The researchers projected that at the current rate of melting, the Himalayan glaciers could shrink by as much as 75% before 2050 and pose “a grave danger to the region’s water security.”
Critical Thinking
1. Do you think that dealing with pollution that crosses borders is the responsibility of the source country or of the countries that are affected?
Scientists classify outdoor air pollutants into two categories (
Figure 18.3
).
Primary pollutants
are chemicals emitted directly into the air from natural processes and human activities at concentrations high enough to cause harm. While in the atmosphere, some primary pollutants react with one another and with other natural components of air to form new harmful chemicals, called
secondary pollutants
.
Figure 18.3
Human inputs of air pollutants come from mobile sources (such as cars) and stationary sources (such as industrial, power, and cement plants). Some primary air pollutants react with one another and with other chemicals in the air to form secondary air pollutants.
Since the 1970s, the quality of outdoor air in most of the more-developed countries has improved, thanks mostly to grassroots pressure from citizens in the 1960s and 1970s. This led governments in the United States and in most European countries to pass and enforce air-pollution-control laws (Core Case Study).
90%
Percentage of the people living in the world’s largest cities who breathe polluted air
Despite such efforts, air pollution is one of the world’s most serious environmental and health problems. In 2018, 134 million Americans or 41% of the U.S. population lived in areas where air pollution reached dangerous levels during parts of the year, according to the American Lung Association. According to a 2017 survey of 4,000 cities in 100 countries by the World Health Organization (WHO), 90% of the people living in the world’s largest cities breathe polluted air. Most people who are exposed to dangerous levels of air pollutants live in densely populated cities in less-developed countries where air-pollution-control laws do not exist or are poorly enforced. For example, 9 of the world’s 10 most polluted cities are in India, according to the WHO.
Prolonged high exposure to air pollutants overloads the body’s natural defense mechanisms. Fine and ultrafine particles can get lodged deep in the lungs and contribute to cancer, asthma, heart attack, and stroke.
18.2bMajor Outdoor Air Pollutants
Hundreds of different chemicals and substances can pollute outdoor air. Here we focus on six major groups of air pollutants.
Carbon Oxides
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, and highly toxic gas that forms during the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing materials (
Table 18.1
). Major sources are motor vehicle exhaust, the burning of forests and grasslands, the smokestacks of fossil fuel–burning power plants and industries, tobacco smoke, and open fires and inefficient stoves used for cooking or heating.
Table 18.1
Chemical Reactions that Form Major Air Pollutants
|
Pollutant |
Chemical Reaction |
|
Carbon monoxide (CO) |
|
|
Carbon dioxide |
|
|
Nitric oxide (NO) |
|
|
Nitrogen dioxide |
|
|
Sulfur dioxide |
In the body, CO can combine with hemoglobin in red blood cells, which reduces the ability of blood to transport oxygen to body cells and tissues. Long-term exposure can trigger heart attacks and aggravate lung diseases such as asthma and emphysema. At high levels, CO can cause headache, nausea, drowsiness, confusion, collapse, coma, and death, which is why it is important to have CO detectors in your home.
Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas. About 93% of the in the atmosphere is the result of the natural carbon cycle (see
Figure 3.20
). The rest comes from human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, which adds to the atmosphere, and the removal of forests and grasslands that help remove excess from the atmosphere. is classified as an air pollutant because it has reached high enough levels to warm the atmosphere and bring about climate change that affects human health. However, there is political pressure from the U.S. fossil fuel industry to reverse the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ruling that is an air pollutant, despite overwhelming scientific evidence that it is.
Nitrogen Oxides and Nitric Acid
Nitric oxide (NO) is a colorless gas that forms when nitrogen and oxygen gases react under high temperatures in automobile engines and coal-burning power and industrial plants (
Table 18.1
). Lightning and certain bacteria in soil and water also produce NO as part of the nitrogen cycle (see
Figure 3.21
).
In the air, NO reacts with oxygen to form nitrogen dioxide , a reddish-brown gas. Collectively, NO and are called nitrogen oxides . Some of the reacts with water vapor in the air to form nitric acid and nitrate salts , components of harmful acid deposition, discussed later in this chapter. Both NO and play a role in the formation of photochemical smog—a mixture of chemicals formed under the influence of sunlight in cities with heavy traffic (
Core Case Study
). Nitrous oxide , a greenhouse gas, is emitted from fertilizers and animal wastes and is produced by the burning of fossil fuels.
At high enough levels, nitrogen oxides can irritate the eyes, nose, and throat, and aggravate lung ailments such as asthma and bronchitis. They can also suppress plant growth and reduce visibility in the atmosphere when they are converted to nitric acid and nitrate salts.
Sulfur Dioxide and Sulfuric Acid
Sulfur dioxide ( is a colorless gas with an irritating odor. About one-third of the in the atmosphere comes from natural sources such as volcanoes. The other two-thirds (and as much as 90% in highly industrialized urban areas) comes from human sources—mostly combustion of sulfur-containing coal in power and industrial plants (
Table 18.1
), oil refining, and the smelting of sulfide ores.
In the atmosphere, can be converted to aerosols, which consist of microscopic suspended droplets of sulfuric acid and suspended particles of sulfate salts that return to the earth as a component of acid deposition. Sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid droplets, and sulfate particles reduce atmospheric visibility and aggravate breathing problems. They can damage crops, trees, soils, and aquatic life in lakes. They also corrode metals and damage paint, paper, leather, and the stone used to build walls, statues (
Figure 18.4
), and monuments.
Figure 18.4
Sulfuric acid and other air pollutants have damaged this statue in Rome, Italy. The nose and part of the forehead have been restored.
O. LOUIS MAZZATENTA/National Geographic Image Collection
Particulates
Suspended particulate matter (SPM) consists of a variety of solid particles and liquid droplets that are small and light enough to remain suspended in the air for long periods. The U.S. EPA classifies particles as fine, or PM-10 (with diameters less than 10 micrometers, or less than one-fifth the diameter of a human hair); and ultrafine, or PM-2.5 (with diameters less than 2.5 micrometers). About 62% of the SPM in outdoor air comes from natural sources such as dust, wildfires, and sea salt. The other 38% comes from human sources such as coal-burning power and industrial plants (
Figure 18.5
), motor vehicles, wind-blown dust from exposed topsoil, road construction, and microplastics. The EPA has found that fine particles can travel for thousands of kilometers in the atmosphere, while ultrafine particles have been shown to travel for up to 10 kilometers (6 miles) from their sources.
Figure 18.5
Severe air pollution from burning coal in an iron and steel factory in Czechoslovakia.
JAMES P. BLAIR/National Geographic Image Collection
Fine particulate matter has a major impact on human health because it is present everywhere and can travel deep into our lungs. Particulate matter can irritate the nose and throat, damage the lungs, aggravate asthma and bronchitis, and shorten life spans. According to the WHO, particulate matter is a major worldwide cause of deaths from lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), strokes, and heart disease.
Toxic particulates such as lead (see the Case Study that follows), cadmium, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) can cause genetic mutations, reproductive problems, and cancer. Particulates also reduce atmospheric visibility, corrode metals, and discolor clothing and paints.
Ozone
A major ingredient of photochemical smog is ozone , a colorless and highly reactive gas. Ozone can cause coughing and breathing problems, aggravate lung and heart diseases, reduce resistance to colds and pneumonia, and irritate the eyes, nose, and throat. Ozone also damages plants, rubber in tires, fabrics, and paints.
Research shows that ozone in the troposphere near ground level can be harmful at high levels, but ozone in the stratosphere is beneficial because it protects us from harmful UV radiation. Scientific measurements show that human activities have decreased the amount of beneficial ozone in the stratosphere and increased the amount of harmful ground-level ozone—especially in some urban areas. We examine the serious issue of decreased stratospheric ozone in the next section of this chapter.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Organic compounds that exist as gases in the atmosphere or that evaporate from sources on the earth’s surface into the atmosphere are called volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Examples are hydrocarbons emitted by the leaves of many plants, and methane . As a greenhouse gas, is 25 times more effective per molecule than is at warming the atmosphere. About a third of global methane emissions come from natural sources such as plants, wetlands, and termites. The rest come from human sources such as rice paddies, landfills, leaking natural gas wells and pipelines, and cows (mostly from their belching) raised for meat and dairy production.
Other VOCs are liquids that can evaporate quickly into the atmosphere. Examples are benzene and other industrial solvents, dry-cleaning fluids, and various chemicals in gasoline, plastics, and other products. In 2018, researchers at the University of Colorado found that chemicals found in paints, pesticides, hair spray, deodorant, soap, perfumes, household chemicals, and other commercial products account for about half of the emissions of VOCs in major U.S. cities such as Los Angeles (
Core Case Study
). This is more than the 32% of the VOC emissions from gasoline and engine exhaust in these cities. Many of these VOCs are emitted indoors where people spend most of their time.
An important priority for many public health officials and scientists is to continually improve the monitoring of outdoor air for the presence of dangerous pollutants (
Science Focus 18.2
).
Science Focus 18.2
Detecting Air Pollutants and Monitoring Air Quality
Chemical instruments and satellites armed with various sensors can detect and measure levels of pollutants in the air. The scientists who discovered the components and effects of the atmospheric brown clouds (
Science Focus 18.1
) used small, unmanned aircraft carrying miniaturized instruments to measure chemical concentrations, temperatures, and other variables within the clouds.
Aerodyne Research in the U.S. city of Boston, Massachusetts, has developed a mobile laboratory that uses sophisticated instruments to make instantaneous measurements of primary and secondary air pollutants from motor vehicles, factories, and other sources. This laboratory can also monitor changes in concentrations of the pollutants throughout a day and under different weather conditions, and it can measure the effectiveness of various air pollution control devices used in cars, trucks, and buses. Scientists are also using nanotechnology (see
Science Focus 14.1
) to try to develop inexpensive detectors for various air pollutants.
In partnership with the EPA, some Google Street View cars are equipped with state-of-the-art sensors that measure atmospheric levels of a number of pollutants, including soot, ozone, and nitrogen oxide gases. If expanded, these data would allow individuals to use Google Earth and Google Maps to monitor air quality on the block where they live.
Biological indictors can also detect air pollutants. For example, a lichen is an organism consisting of a fungus and an alga living together, usually in a mutualistic relationship. These hardy pioneer species are good biological indicators of air pollution because they continually absorb air as a source of nourishment. A highly polluted area around an industrial plant might have only gray-green crusty lichens or none at all. An area with moderate air pollution might support only orange crusty lichens (
Figure 18.B
) and areas with clean air can support a variety of lichens.
Figure 18.B
Lichens such as these growing on a rock can act as biological indicators of air pollution.
Mr Doomits/ Shutterstock.com
Some lichen species are sensitive to specific air-polluting chemicals. Old man’s beard and yellow Evernia lichens, for example, can sicken and die in the presence of excessive sulfur dioxide , even if the pollutant originates far away. Scientists used Evernia lichens to discover pollution on Isle Royale, Michigan (USA), in Lake Superior, an island where no car or smokestack has ever intruded, and traced it to coal-burning facilities in and around the Canadian city of Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Using daily information about air pollution, the EPA has created an air quality indicator called the Air Quality Index (AQI) for informing citizens about unsafe levels of pollution in any given area of the country. Scientists collect daily data on the levels of five major pollutants—ground-level ozone, particulates, CO, , and —using instruments at more than 1,000 locations around the United States. They use these data to compute a daily AQI for each pollutant and an overall AQI for any particular region. AQI values run from 0 to 500, with higher numbers indicating poorer air quality. Values of 200 and over are considered very unhealthy or hazardous for all people.
Critical Thinking
1. Who should pay for the science and technology of air pollution detection and air quality monitoring? Explain.
Learning from Nature
The atmosphere has a self-cleaning mechanism involving sunlight and naturally occurring ozone, which when mixed with polluting gasses, cause pollutants to clump together to form particles which are then washed out of the air by precipitation. Chemist Matthew Johnson has invented a device called the atmospheric photochemical accelerator that mimics this process, cleansing indoor and outdoor air of pollutants, especially VOCs, without the use of toxic substances or high-temperature processes common to most air filtering devices.
Case Study
Lead: A Highly Toxic Pollutant
Lead (Pb) is a soft gray metal used to make various products including lead–acid batteries and bullets, and it was once a common ingredient of gasoline and paints. It is also a particulate pollutant found in air, water, soil, plants, and animals.
Because it is a chemical element, lead does not break down in the environment. This indestructible and potent neurotoxin can harm the nervous system, especially in young children. Children with severe lead poisoning can suffer from palsy, partial paralysis, blindness, and mental retardation.
Children under age 6 and unborn fetuses, even with low blood levels of lead, are especially vulnerable to nervous system impairment, lowered IQ (by 2 to 5 points), shortened attention span, hyperactivity, hearing damage, and various behavior disorders. According to many scientists, there is no safe level of lead in children’s blood, and they call for sharply reducing the currently allowed levels for lead in the air and water.
Since the 1970s, the percentage of U.S. children under age 6 with blood lead levels above the safety standard dropped from 85% to less than 1%, which prevented at least 9 million childhood lead poisonings, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The primary reason for this drop was that after a decade-long fight with the oil and lead industries, the federal government banned leaded gasoline in 1976. Leaded gasoline was completely phased out by 1986. The government also greatly reduced the allowable levels of lead in paints. This is an example of the effectiveness of pollution prevention.
However, in 2012, the CDC used the latest scientific data to come up with stricter guidelines for identifying children who have potentially dangerous blood lead levels. These guidelines more than doubled the estimated number of young children at risk from lead poisoning in the United States, raising it to about 535,000. In 2018, the CDC found that at least 4 million U.S. households—about 1 in every 30—had children exposed to high levels of lead.
The major source of lead exposure is peeling lead-based paint and lead-contaminated dust in some older U.S. homes. Children can inhale or ingest paint particles from these sources when they put dust-covered hands or toys into their mouths. Another source is soils contaminated with lead emitted by motor vehicles before leaded gasoline was banned. Lead can also leach from water pipes and faucets containing lead parts or lead solder (a water pollution problem that we examine in
Chapter 20
). Other sources are older coal-burning power plants that have not been required to meet the emission standards of new plants, as well as lead smelters and waste incinerators.
Connections
Lead and Urban Gardening
Health officials and scientists urge people who plant urban vegetable gardens to have their garden soils tested for lead. For decades, lead particles fell from the air into urban soils, primarily from the exhaust fumes of vehicles burning leaded gasoline. Soil found to have lead in it can be treated or removed from urban gardens and replaced with uncontaminated soil.
By 2017, all of the world’s countries, except Algeria, had banned the use of leaded gasoline. Most of the world’s more developed counties banned the use of lead for painting the inside or outside of homes and other buildings over 40 years ago. However, 55 countries including China, India, Russia, most South America countries, and several African countries, still allow the sale of lead-based paints. This exposes millions of young children to toxic lead.
Children and adults in China and several African countries are also exposed to dangerous levels of lead when they work in recycling centers extracting lead and other valuable metals from electronic waste (e-waste)—discarded computers, TV sets, cellphones, and other electronic devices. Globally in 2016, exposure to lead killed about 540,000 people, mostly in less-developed countries, according to Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Health scientists have proposed a number of ways to help protect children from lead poisoning (
Figure 18.6
).
Figure 18.6
Ways to help protect children from lead poisoning.
Critical Thinking:
1. Which two of these solutions do you think are the best ones? Why?
Top: ssuaphotos/ Shutterstock.com. Center: Mark Smith/ Shutterstock.com. Bottom: Dmitry Kalinovsky/ Shutterstock.com.
18.2cIndustrial Smog
Seventy-five years ago, cities such as London, England, and the U.S. cities of Chicago, Illinois, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, burned large amounts of coal in power plants and factories. People in such cities also burned coal to heat their homes and to cook food. Often, especially during winter, they were exposed to
industrial smog
, consisting mostly of an unhealthy mix of sulfur dioxide , suspended droplets of sulfuric acid, and a variety of suspended solid particles in outside air. People who burned coal inside their homes were often exposed to dangerous levels of particulates and other indoor air pollutants.
When coal or oil is burned, the sulfur compounds they contain react with oxygen to produce gas (
Figure 18.7
, left), some of which is converted to tiny suspended droplets of sulfuric acid . Some of these droplets react with ammonia in the atmosphere to form solid particles of ammonium sulfate, or . In addition, during combustion of coal and oil, most of the carbon they contain is converted to carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide . Unburned carbon in coal also ends up in the atmosphere as soot or black carbon. Suspended particles of such salts and soot give the resulting smog a gray color (Figure 18.5), which is why it is sometimes called gray-air smog.
Figure 18.7
Simplified model of how pollutants are formed when coal and oil are burned. The result is industrial smog.
Today, urban industrial smog is rarely a problem in most of the more-developed countries where coal is burned only in large power and industrial plants with reasonably good air pollution control. However, many of these facilities have tall smokestacks that send the pollutants high into air where prevailing winds carry them downwind to rural areas, and can cause air pollution problems that we deal with later in this chapter.
However, industrial smog remains a problem in industrialized urban areas of China, India, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia (
Figure 18.5), Poland (which has 33 of the European Union’s 50 most polluted cities), and other countries where large quantities of coal are still burned in houses, power plants, and factories with inadequate pollution controls. Because of its heavy reliance on coal, China has high levels of industrial smog in many of its cities, including Beijing (see
chapter opening photo
). China is making some progress in lessening its dependence on coal and in reducing air pollution in Beijing and 27 other cities but has a long way to go.
Another type of smog is
photochemical smog
. It is a brownish mixture of primary and secondary pollutants formed when certain gases in the atmosphere mostly those emitted by automobiles and trucks react with UV radiation from the sun. The formation of photochemical smog (
Figure 18.8
) begins when exhaust from morning commuter traffic releases large amounts of NO and VOCs into the air over a city. The NO is converted to reddish-brown , which is why photochemical smog is sometimes called brown-air smog (
Figure 18.1
)
.
When exposed to UV radiation from the sun, some of the reacts with VOCs released by certain trees (such as certain species of oak, sweet gum, and poplar), motor vehicles, and businesses (especially bakeries and dry cleaners). The resulting photochemical smog is a mixture of secondary pollutants, dominated by ground-level ozone. Hotter days lead to higher levels of ozone and other smog components. The smog usually reaches peak levels in late morning and causes eye irritation and breathing problems.
Figure 18.8
Simplified model of how the pollutants that make up photochemical smog are formed mostly from gases emitted by automobiles and trucks.
Photo: ssuaphotos/ Shutterstock.com
All modern cities have some photochemical smog, but it is much more common in cities with sunny and warm climates, and a large number of motor vehicles. Examples are Los Angeles, California (
Core Case Study and Figure 18.1), and Salt Lake City, Utah, in the United States; Sydney, Australia; São Paulo, Brazil; Bangkok, Thailand; and Mexico City, Mexico.
Connections
Short Driving Trips and Air Pollution
About 60% of the pollution from motor vehicle emissions occurs in the first minutes of operation before pollution control devices are working at top efficiency. Yet 40% of all U.S. car trips take place within 3 kilometers (2 miles) of drivers’ homes, and half of the U.S. working population drives 8 kilometers (5 miles) or less to work. Did you drive a car today, and if so, how far did you drive?
18.2dFactors Affecting Outdoor Air Pollution
Five natural factors help reduce outdoor air pollution. First, gravity causes particles heavier than air to settle out of the atmosphere. Second, rain and snow partially cleanse the air of pollutants. Third, salty sea spray from the oceans washes out many pollutants from air that flows from land over the oceans. Fourth, winds sweep pollutants away and dilute them by mixing them with cleaner air. Fifth, natural chemical reactions remove some pollutants. For example, can react with in the atmosphere to form , which reacts with water vapor to form droplets of that fall out of the atmosphere as acidic precipitation.
Six other factors can increase outdoor air pollution. First, urban buildings slow wind speed and reduce the dilution and removal of pollutants. Second, hills and mountains reduce the flow of air in valleys below them and allow pollutant levels to build up at ground level. Third, high temperatures promote the chemical reactions leading to the formation of photochemical smog. Fourth, emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from certain trees and plants in urban areas can promote the formation of photochemical smog.
The fifth factor that increases air pollution has to do with the vertical movement of air. During the day, the sun warms air near the earth’s surface. Normally, this warm air and most of the pollutants it contains rise and mix with the cooler air above it and are dispersed. However, under certain atmospheric conditions layer of warm air can temporarily lie atop a layer of cooler air nearer the ground. This is called a
temperature inversion
. Because the cooler air near the surface is denser than the warmer air above, it does not rise and mix with the air above. If this condition persists, pollutants can build up to harmful and even lethal concentrations in the trapped layer of cool air near the ground.
Two types of areas are especially susceptible to prolonged temperature inversions. The first is a town or city located in a valley surrounded by mountains where the weather turns cloudy and cold during part of the year (
Figure 18.9
, left). In such cases, the clouds block much of the winter sunlight that causes air to heat and rise, and the mountains block winds that could disperse the pollutants. As long as these stagnant conditions persist, pollutants in the valley below will continue to build up.
Figure 18.9
A temperature inversion can take place in either of the two sets of topography and weather conditions shown here. Polluted air can be trapped between mountain ranges and under the inversion layer (left), or it can be blown by sea breezes and trapped against a mountain range and under the conversion layer (right).
The other type of area vulnerable to temperature inversions is a city with many motor vehicles in an area with a sunny climate, mountains on three sides, and an ocean on the fourth side (
Figure 18.9
, right). Here, the conditions are ideal for the formation of photochemical smog, worsened by frequent thermal inversions. The surrounding mountains prevent the polluted surface air from being blown away by breezes coming off the sea. This describes several cities, including heavily populated Los Angeles, California (
Core Case Study
), which has prolonged temperature inversions.
The sixth factor is that air pollution can move from one country to another, as discussed in
Science Focus 18.1
.
18.3aAcid Deposition
Most coal-burning power plants, metal ore smelters, oil refineries, and other industrial facilities emit sulfur dioxide , suspended particles, and nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere. In more-developed countries, these facilities often use tall smokestacks to vent their exhausts high into the atmosphere where wind can dilute and disperse these pollutants (
Figure 18.10
). This reduces local air pollution, but it can increase regional air pollution, because prevailing winds can transport the and pollutants as far as 1,000 kilometers (600 miles). During their trip, these compounds form secondary pollutants such as droplets of sulfuric acid , nitric acid vapor , and particles of acid-forming sulfate and nitrate salts (
Figure 18.3
).
Figure 18.10
Tall smokestacks can reduce local air pollution from burning coal, but they help transfer sulfur dioxide and particulates to downwind areas.
JAMES P. BLAIR/National Geographic Image Collection
These acidic substances remain in the atmosphere for 2 to 14 days. They descend to the earth’s surface in two forms. The first is wet deposition, consisting of acidic rain, snow, fog, and cloud vapor, with a pH of less than 5.6—the acidity level of unpolluted rain (
Figure 2.6
). The second is dry deposition, consisting of acidic particles. The resulting mixture is called
acid deposition
(
Figure 18.11
)—often called acid rain. Most dry deposition occurs within 2 to 3 days of emission, relatively close to the industrial sources, whereas most wet deposition takes place within 4 to 14 days in more distant downwind areas.
Figure 18.11
Natural capital degradation: Acid deposition, which consists of rain, snow, dust, or gas with a pH lower than 5.6, is commonly called acid rain.
Critical Thinking:
1. What are three ways in which your daily activities contribute to acid deposition?
Acid deposition has been occurring since the Industrial Revolution began in the mid-1700s. In 1872, British chemist Robert A. Smith coined the term acid rain after observing that rain was eating away stone in the walls of buildings in major industrial areas. Acid deposition is the result of human activities that disrupt the natural nitrogen cycle (see
Figure 3.21
) and sulfur cycle by adding excessive amounts of and to the atmosphere.
Acid deposition is a regional air pollution problem in areas that lie downwind from coal-burning facilities and from urban areas with large numbers of cars. The map in
Figure 18.12
shows areas of the world where acid deposition is, or is likely to be, a problem. In some areas, soils contain basic compounds such as calcium carbonate or limestone that can react with and help neutralize, or buffer, some inputs of acids. The areas most sensitive to acid deposition are those with thin, acidic soils that provide no natural buffering (
Figure 18.12
, all green and most red areas) and those where the buffering capacity of soils has been depleted by decades of acid deposition.
Figure 18.12
This map shows regions where acid deposition is now a problem and regions with the potential to develop this problem. Such regions have large inputs of air pollution (mostly from power plants, industrial facilities, and ore smelters) or are sensitive areas with naturally acidic soils and bedrock that cannot neutralize (buffer) additional inputs of acidic compounds.
(Compiled by the authors using data from World Resources Institute and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.)
In the United States, older coal-burning power and industrial plants without adequate pollution controls, especially in the Midwest, emit the largest quantities of and other pollutants that cause acid deposition. Because of these emissions and those of other urban industries and motor vehicles, as well as the prevailing west-to-east winds, typical precipitation in the eastern United States is at least 10 times more acidic than natural precipitation is. One of the first experiments to determine this took place in the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest (see
Chapter 2
Core Case Study
), located in the northeastern United States. There, researchers found that precipitation was several hundred times more acidic than natural rainwater.
Many acid-producing chemicals generated in one country are exported to other countries by prevailing winds. For example, acidic emissions from the United Kingdom and Germany blow south and east into Switzerland and Austria, and north and east into Norway and other neighboring countries. The worst acid deposition occurs in Asia, especially in China, which in 2017 got 60% of its total energy and 75% of its electricity from burning coal, according to the International Energy Agency. According to its government, China is the world’s top emitter of .
18.3bHarmful Effects of Acid Deposition
Acid deposition damages stone and metals in buildings and statues (
Figure 18.4
), contributes to human respiratory diseases, and can leach toxic metals such as lead and mercury from soils and rocks into lakes used as sources of drinking water. These toxic metals can accumulate in the tissues of fish eaten by people (especially pregnant women) and other animals. Currently, 45 U.S. states have issued warnings telling people to avoid eating fish caught from waters that are contaminated with toxic mercury (see
Chapter 17
,
Core Case Study
).
Acid deposition also harms aquatic ecosystems. Most fish cannot survive in water with a pH less than 4.
5.
In addition, as acid precipitation flows through soils, it can release aluminum ions attached to minerals in the soils and carry them into lakes, streams, and wetlands. There these ions can suffocate many kinds of fish by stimulating excessive mucus formation, which clogs their gills. Because of excess acidity, several thousand lakes in Norway and Sweden, and 1,200 lakes in Ontario, Canada, contain few if any fish. In the United States, several hundred lakes (most in the Northeast) are similarly threatened.
A combination of acid deposition and other air pollutants (such as ozone) can harm crops and reduce plant productivity, especially when the soil pH is below 5.1. Low pH reduces plant productivity and the ability of soils to buffer or neutralize acidic inputs. An estimated 30% of China’s cropland suffers from excess acidity.
A combination of acid deposition and other air pollutants can also affect forests in two ways (
Figure 18.13
). One is by leaching essential plant nutrients such as calcium and magnesium from forest soils. They also cause soils to release ions of aluminum, lead, cadmium, and mercury, which are toxic to trees. These effects rarely kill trees directly, but they can weaken them and leave them vulnerable to stresses such as severe cold, diseases, insect attacks, and drought.
Figure 18.13
Natural capital degradation: Air pollution is one of several interacting stresses that can damage, weaken, or kill trees and pollute surface and groundwater. The inset photo shows trees in a German forest that have died due to exposure to acid deposition and other air pollutants.
Anticiclo/ Shutterstock.com
Mountaintop forests are the terrestrial areas hit hardest by acid deposition. These areas tend to have thin soils without much buffering capacity and some of these areas are bathed almost continuously in highly acidic fog and clouds. Some mountaintop forests in the eastern United States, as well as east of Los Angeles, California (
Core Case Study
), are bathed in fog and dews that are as acidic as lemon juice—with about 1,000 times the acidity of unpolluted precipitation.
18.3cReducing Acid Deposition
Figure 18.14
lists ways to reduce acid deposition. According to most scientific experts on acid deposition, the best solutions are preventive approaches that reduce or eliminate emissions of sulfur dioxide , nitrogen oxides , and particulates. Since 1994, acid deposition has decreased sharply in the United States and especially in the eastern half of the country. This is partly the result of significant reductions in and emissions from coal-burning facilities under the 1990 amendments to the U.S. Clean Air Act. Even so, soils and surface waters in many areas are still acidic because of the accumulation of acids over decades of acid deposition.
Figure 18.14
Ways to reduce acid deposition and its damage.
Critical Thinking:
1. Which two of these solutions do you think are the best ones? Why?
Top: Brittany Courville/ Shutterstock.com. Bottom: racorn/ Shutterstock.com.
Implementing acid deposition prevention solutions is politically difficult. One problem is that the people and ecosystems affected by acid deposition often are quite far downwind from the sources of the problem. In addition, countries with large supplies of coal (such as China, India, Russia, Australia, and the United States) have a strong incentive to use it. Owners of coal-burning power plants also resist adding the latest pollution control equipment to their facilities and using low-sulfur coal, arguing that these measures increase the cost of electricity for consumers.
However, in the United States, the use of affordable and cleaner-burning natural gas (see
Chapter 15
) and wind (see
Chapter 16
) for generating electricity is on the rise, and has reduced the use of coal. Environmental scientists point out that including the largely hidden, harmful health and environmental costs of burning coal in its market prices, in keeping with the full-cost pricing principle of sustainability, would further reduce coal use, spur the use of cleaner ways to generate electricity, and help prevent acid deposition.
Large amounts of limestone or ground lime can be used to neutralize some acidified lakes and surrounding soils. However, this expensive and temporary remedy usually must be repeated annually. It can also kill some types of plankton and aquatic plants and harm certain wetland plants that need acidic water.
According to the EPA, between 1980 and 2017, air pollution laws in the United States helped to reduce emissions from all sources by 90% and nitrogen oxide emissions by 60%. This has helped reduce the acidity of rainfall in parts of the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Midwest regions. However, scientists call for more reductions of these and other harmful emissions from older coal-burning power and industrial plants.
China, the world’s largest emitter of , has one of the world’s most serious acid deposition problems. China’s emissions have declined slightly because of some reduction in coal use since 2011, but the country has a long way to go in curtailing acid deposition.
Connections
Low-Sulfur Coal, Atmospheric Warming, and Toxic Mercury
Some U.S. power plants have lowered emissions by switching from high-sulfur to low-sulfur coals such as lignite (see
Figure 15.10
). However, because low-sulfur coal has a lower heat value, more coal must be burned to generate a given amount of electricity. This has led to increased emissions, which contribute to atmospheric warming and climate change. Because low-sulfur coal also has higher levels of toxic mercury and other trace metals, burning it emits more of these hazardous chemicals into the atmosphere.
18.4aIndoor Air Pollution Is a Serious Problem
3.8 Million
Annual number of global deaths due to indoor air pollution
Indoor air pollution has become a major health concern all over the world. In less-developed countries, the indoor burning of wood, charcoal, dung, crop residues, coal, and other fuels in open fires (
Figure 18.15
) and in unvented or poorly vented stoves exposes people to dangerous levels of particulate air pollution. The WHO has estimated that indoor air pollution kills about 3.8 million people per year—an average of 10,410 deaths per day—mostly in less-developed countries.
Figure 18.15
Burning wood to cook food inside this dwelling in Nepal exposes this woman and other occupants to dangerous levels of indoor air pollution.
Alain Lauga/ Shutterstock.com
Indoor air pollution is also a serious problem in the United States and in more-developed areas of all countries. According to the EPA and public health officials, the three most dangerous indoor air pollutants in such areas are tobacco smoke (see
Chapter 17
, Case Study); formaldehyde emitted from many building materials and various household products; and radioactive radon-222 gas, which can seep into houses from underground rock deposits (see the
Case Study
that follows).
Case Study
Radioactive Radon Gas
Radon-222 is a colorless, odorless, radioactive gas produced by the natural radioactive decay of uranium-238, small amounts of which are contained in most rocks and soils. However, this isotope is much more concentrated in underground deposits of minerals such as uranium, phosphate, shale, and granite.
Figure 18.17
compares the potential geological risk of exposure to radioactive radon across the United States.
Figure 18.17
The potential for radon exposure varies across the United States, depending on the types of underlying soils and bedrock. (Expressed in terms of concentrations of radioactive radon in picocuries per liter (pCi/L).
Question:
1. What is the average risk level of exposure to radioactive radon where you live or go to school?
(Compiled by the authors using data from U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.)
When radioactive radon gas from such deposits seeps upward through the soil and is released outdoors, it disperses quickly in the air and decays to harmless levels of radioactivity. However, in buildings above such deposits, radon gas can enter through cracks in a foundation’s slab and walls, as well as through well water, openings around sump pumps and drains, and hollow concrete blocks (
Figure 18.18
). Once inside, it can build up to high levels, especially in unventilated lower levels of homes and buildings.
Figure 18.18
Ways that radon-222 gas can enter homes and other buildings.
Question:
1. Has anyone tested the indoor air where you live for radon-222?
(Compiled by the authors using data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.)
Radon-222 gas quickly decays into solid particles of other radioactive elements such as polonium-210, which can expose lung tissue to large amounts of radioactivity. This exposure can damage lung tissue and lead to lung cancer over the course of a 70-year lifetime. Your chances of getting lung cancer, the leading cancer killer in both men and women in the United States, from radon depend mostly on how much radon is in your home, how much time you spend in your home, and whether you are a smoker or have ever smoked. About 90% of radon-related lung cancers occur among current or former smokers.
According to the EPA, radioactive radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer after smoking. Each year, according to the National Cancer Institute, radon-induced lung cancer kills about 20,000 people in the United States. Despite this risk, less than 20% of U.S. households have followed the EPA’s recommendation to conduct radon tests, which can be done with inexpensive testing kits. Many schools and day-care centers also have not tested for radon, and only a few states have laws that require radon testing for schools.
When radon is detected, homeowners need to seal all cracks in the foundation’s slab and walls. They can also increase ventilation by cracking a window, installing vents in the basement, and using a fan to create cross ventilation.
Formaldehyde is a colorless, extremely irritating chemical that is considered a carcinogen. It is commonly used to make furniture, drapes, carpeting, foam insulation, and other products. It can also be present in plywood, particleboard, paneling, and high-gloss wood used to make flooring and cabinets. According to the EPA and the American Lung Association, 20 to 40 million Americans suffer from chronic breathing problems, dizziness, headaches, sore throats, sinus and eye irritation, and other ailments caused by daily exposure to low levels of formaldehyde emitted from these materials and products. Many manufactured (mobile) homes have been found to have high levels of formaldehyde. The EPA estimates that 1 of every 5,000 people who live for more than 10 years in such homes will likely develop cancer from formaldehyde exposure.
Other common sources of indoor air pollution, according to the EPA, include the following:
· Pesticide residues in the 75% of U.S. homes where pesticides are used indoors at least once a year
· Lead particles brought indoors on shoes and collecting in carpets and furnishings
·
Dust mites and cockroach droppings found in some homes, thought to play a role in asthma attacks
· Airborne spores of molds and mildew that can cause headaches, allergic reactions, and asthma attacks
· Candles, almost all of which emit fine-particle soot when burned
· Clothes dryer sheets that emit an ammonium salt, linked to asthma
· Gas stoves that emit nitrogen dioxide
· Cleaning products that contain alcohol, chlorine, ammonia, and VOCs
· Air fresheners that emit glycol ethers, which can contribute to fatigue, nausea, and anemia
· Air purifiers that emit ozone
Figure 18.16
summarizes these and other sources of indoor air pollution in a modern home.
Figure 18.16
Numerous indoor air pollutants are found in most modern homes.
Question:
1. To which of these pollutants are you likely exposed?
(Compiled by the authors using data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.)
Danish and U.S. EPA studies have linked various air pollutants found in buildings to a number of health effects, a phenomenon known as the sick-building syndrome. Such effects include dizziness, headaches, coughing, sneezing, shortness of breath, nausea, burning eyes, sore throats, skin irritation, and respiratory infections. EPA and Labor Department studies indicate that almost one of every five U.S. commercial buildings exposes employees to such health risks.
EPA studies have revealed some alarming facts about indoor air pollution in the United States. First, levels of several common air pollutants generally are two to five times higher inside U.S. homes and commercial buildings than they are outdoors. In some cases, they are as much as 100 times higher. Second, pollution levels inside cars in traffic-clogged urban areas can be up to 18 times higher than outside levels. Third, the health risks from exposure to such chemicals are growing because most people in more-developed urban areas spend up to 90% of their time indoors or inside vehicles. Smokers, children younger than age 5, the elderly, the sick, pregnant women, people with respiratory or heart problems, and factory workers are especially at risk from indoor air pollution. GREEN CAREER: Indoor air pollution specialist
18.5aOverwhelming Our Body’s Natural Air Pollution Defenses
Your respiratory system (
Figure 18.19
) helps protect you from air pollution in various ways. Hairs in your nose filter out large particles. Sticky mucus in the lining of your upper respiratory tract captures smaller (but not the smallest) particles and dissolves some gaseous pollutants. Hundreds of thousands of tiny, mucus-coated, hair-like structures, called cilia, also line your upper respiratory tract. They continually move back and forth and transport mucus and the pollutants it traps to your throat where they are swallowed or expelled through sneezing and coughing.
Figure 18.19
Major components of the human respiratory system can help protect us from air pollution, but these defenses can be overwhelmed or breached.
Prolonged or acute exposure to air pollutants can overload or break down these natural defenses. Fine and ultrafine particulates can lodge deep in the lungs and contribute to lung cancer, asthma, heart attack, and stroke. Years of smoking or breathing polluted air can lead to other lung ailments such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema, (
Figure 17.23
) which lead to acute shortness of breath.
Recent research, including a study done at the University of Southern California, indicates that fine and ultrafine particles in the air can bypass this defense system by moving directly from our nostrils to our brains along neural pathways. Researchers say that once in the brain, these pollutants could be initiating or accelerating degenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.
18.5bAir Pollution Is a Big Killer
8 Million
Annual global number of deaths due to outdoor and indoor air pollution
The WHO has dubbed air pollution “the world’s largest single environmental health risk.” In 2017, the WHO estimated that outdoor and indoor air pollution kills about 8 million people each year—an average of about 913 deaths every hour. According to a 2017 study by the U.S. Health Effects Institute, outdoor air pollution annually kills about 1.8 million people in India, 1.6 million people in China, and 780,000 in Africa. The leading direct causes of death related to air pollution are heart attacks, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and lung cancer.
Steven Barrett and other researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) estimate that outdoor air pollution, mostly fine-particle pollution, contributes to the deaths of roughly 200,000 Americans every year (
Figure 18.20
). About half of these deaths are blamed on car and truck exhaust and the other half on coal-burning power and industrial plants. Millions more suffer from asthma attacks and other respiratory disorders brought on or aggravated by air pollution, especially from fine-particle pollutants. In 2018, the EPA, led by a former lobbyist for coal companies, proposed weakening the air pollution standards for burning coal.
Figure 18.20
Distribution of premature deaths from air pollution in the United States, mostly from very small, fine, and ultrafine particles added to the atmosphere by older coal-burning power plants that have been exempted from air pollution standards for new power plants.
Critical Thinking:
1. Why do the highest death rates occur in the eastern half of the United States? If you live in the United States, what is the risk at your home or where you go to school?
(Compiled by the authors using data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.); GaViAl/ Shutterstock.com
According to EPA studies, each year, more than 125,000 Americans get cancer primarily from breathing soot-laden diesel fumes emitted by buses, trucks, tractors, bulldozers and other construction equipment, trains, and ships. A large diesel truck emits as much particulate matter as 150 cars. A study led by Daniel Lack found that the world’s 100,000 or more diesel-powered oceangoing ships emit almost half as much particulate pollution as do the world’s 1 billion motor vehicles.
Each year, about 10,000 people in the United States die from breathing smoke from wildfires. This number is projected to increase to 44,000 deaths per year by 2100, mostly because of the projected increase in wildfires caused by the drying of forests that are suffering from prolonged drought.
18.6aLaws and Regulations
The United States provides an example of how government can reduce air pollution. The U.S. Congress passed the Clean Air Acts of 1970, 1977, and 1990. With these laws, the federal government established air pollution regulations for key outdoor air pollutants to be enforced by states and major cities.
Congress directed the EPA to establish air quality standards for six major outdoor pollutants—carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide , sulfur dioxide , suspended particulate matter (SPM, smaller than PM-10), ozone , and lead (Pb). One limit, called a primary standard, was set to protect human health. Another limit, called a secondary standard, was intended to prevent environmental and property damage. Each standard specifies the maximum allowable level for a pollutant, averaged over a specific period.
The EPA has also established national emission standards for more than 188 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)—pollutants that can cause serious health and ecological effects. Most of these chemicals are chlorinated hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, or compounds of toxic metals. An important public source of information about HAPs is the annual Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). The TRI law (passed in 1990 as part of the Pollution Prevention Act) requires more than 20,000 refineries, power plants, mines, chemical manufacturers, and factories to report their releases and waste management methods for 667 toxic chemicals. The TRI, which is available on the internet, lists this information by community. Since the first TRI report was released in 1988, reported emissions of toxic chemicals have dropped sharply.
In 2015, the EPA issued the first federal rules to limit emissions of on existing coal-fired power plants beginning in 2022 with full compliance by 2030. According to the EPA, these plants are responsible for nearly 40% of emissions in the United States. In addition to slowing climate change, measures to control emissions will also result in reduced emissions of other air pollutants. The EPA projected that by 2030 these new regulations will have the effect of cutting nitrogen oxides by 72% and sulfur dioxides by 90%, compared to 2005 levels. The agency also projected that these cuts would prevent 3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed work days and school days.
Coal and utility companies and 18 states with older polluting coal-fired power plants have succeeded in putting off stricter air pollution standards for existing coal-burning power plants for almost 40 years. They have challenged these new regulations in the courts, charging the EPA with a power grab designed to put coal companies out of business. In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court put a hold on implementing the new standards even though they do not start taking effect until 2022 while the legal challenges make their way through 30 lawsuits in the courts. Since 2017, the EPA, under pressure from coal producers, has been studying ways to weaken these standards.
In 2013, the EPA proposed stricter motor vehicle emission standards that would reduce emissions of VOCs and nitrogen oxides by 80% and particulate emissions by 70%. The EPA estimated that each year, these new standards would cut the death toll from outdoor air pollution by 2,000 and reduce the number of cases of respiratory ailments in children by 23,000. They would also lead to estimated savings of $7 in health-care costs for every $1 spent to implement the new standards. The resulting increase in the cost of a gallon of gasoline would be 1 cent. Oil companies oppose the new standards, saying they would cost too much and would hinder economic growth. In 2018, the EPA, under pressure from car and truck producers, was considering weakening these air pollution standards.
According to the EPA, there were significant declines in the annual atmospheric levels of lead (98% drop), sulfur dioxide (88% drop), carbon monoxide (77% drop), nitrogen dioxide (56% drop), and ozone (22 % drop) between 1980 and 2017 (
Figure 18.21
). According to a 2018 EPA report on the nation’s air quality, the combined emissions of the six major outdoor air pollutants decreased by about 73% between 1970 and 2017, even with significant increases during the same period in gross domestic product, vehicle miles traveled, population, and energy consumption.
Figure 18.21
Trends in reduction of levels of major air pollutants between 1990 and 2017.
Data Analysis:
1. Which of the pollutants declined by the greatest percentage between 1990 and 2017?
Compiled by the authors using data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This significant reduction of outdoor air pollution in the United States since 1990 is due mostly to two factors. First, during the 1960s and early 1970s, U.S. citizens insisted that laws be passed and enforced to improve air quality. Prior to 1970, when Congress passed the Clean Air Act, air-pollution-control equipment did not exist but was widespread in the 1980s. Second, the country was affluent enough to afford such controls for factories, power plants, and motor vehicles. Today, a new car in the United States emits 75% less air pollution than did a pre-1970 car.
Environmental scientists applaud this success, but they point out that the rate of decline for emissions of CO and has been slowing since 2011. They call for strengthening U.S. air pollution laws by doing the following:
· Putting much greater emphasis on pollution prevention. The power of prevention was made clear by the 99% drop in U.S. atmospheric lead emissions after lead in gasoline was banned in 1976.
·
Sharply reducing emissions from approximately 20,000 older coal-burning power and industrial plants, cement plants, oil refineries, and waste incinerators that have not been required to meet the air pollution standards for new facilities under the Clean Air Acts.
· Reducing atmospheric emissions of toxic pollutants such as mercury (see
Figure 17.13
).Continuing to improve fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles, one of the most important steps needed to slow climate change and ocean acidification.
· Strict regulation of emissions from motorcycles and two-cycle gasoline engines used in devices such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, generators, scooters (
Figure 18.22
), and snowmobiles. The EPA estimates that running a gas-powered riding lawn mower for an hour creates as much VOC air pollution as driving 34 cars for an hour.
Figure 18.22
Many of the motorized scooters so commonly found on most college campuses, especially those with two-cycle engines, produce more nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons—pollutants that contribute to photochemical smog—per unit of distance driven than the average car produces. Older scooters and poorly maintained scooters emit many times more of these pollutants than cars emit. Thus, even though they are more fuel-efficient than most cars, as a group, scooters are major contributors to urban air pollution.
ZRyzner/ Shutterstock.com
· Setting much stricter air pollution regulations for airports and oceangoing ships.
· Sharply reducing indoor air pollution.
However, there is strong political pressure to weaken—not strengthen—U.S. air pollution laws. Executives of companies that would be affected by implementing stronger air pollution regulations claim that they would cost too much and would hinder economic growth. Proponents of stronger regulations contend that history has shown that most industry cost estimates for implementing U.S. air pollution control standards have been much higher than the costs actually proved to be. In addition, implementing such standards has helped some companies and created jobs by stimulating these companies to develop new pollution control technologies.
In 2018, the American Lung Association pointed to threats to the nation’s important progress toward healthier and cleaner air that could result from seven key policy changes being considered by the EPA:
· Weakening the Clean Air Act
· Repealing plans to reduce climate-changing emissions from power plants
· Eliminating limits on climate-changing emission from natural gas and oil operations
· Reducing efforts to raise the air pollution emission standards and increase fuel economy standards for cars and trucks
· Relaxing the health standards for emissions of microscopic (PM2.5) particulates, even though research has revealed that they are one the world’s greatest health threats.
· Exempting farmers from reporting air pollutant emissions from animal feedlots (
Figure 12.10
) and combined animal feeding operations for pigs and chickens (
Figure 12.11
)
· Cutting EPA funding for staff and independent scientific advisers needed to implement air pollution and other environmental laws.
· 18.6bUsing the Marketplace to Reduce Outdoor Air Pollution
· One approach to reducing pollutant emissions has been to allow producers of air pollutants to buy and sell government air pollution allotments in the marketplace. For example, with the goal of reducing emissions, the Clean Air Act of 1990 authorized an emissions trading, or cap-and-trade program, which enables the 110 most polluting coal-fired power plants in 21 states to buy and sell air pollution rights.
· Under this system, each plant is annually given a number of pollution credits, which allow it to emit a certain amount of . A utility that emits less than its allotted amount at one its plants has a surplus of pollution credits. It can use these credits to offset emissions at its other plants, keep them for future plant expansions, or sell them to other utilities or private citizens or groups. Between 1990 and 2017, this emissions trading program helped to reduce emissions from power plants in the United States by 79%, at a cost of less than one-tenth of the cost projected by the utility industry, according to the EPA. The 2015 Clean Power Plan gives states the option of allowing power plant companies to use emissions trading to meet the new reduction standards.
· Proponents of this market-based approach say it is cheaper and more efficient than government regulation of air pollution. Critics of this approach contend that it allows utilities with older, dirtier power plants to buy their way out of their environmental responsibilities and to continue to pollute. The ultimate success of any emissions trading approach depends on two factors: how low the initial cap is set and how often it is lowered in order to promote continuing innovation in air pollution prevention and control.
18.6cReducing Outdoor Air Pollution
Figure 18.23
summarizes several ways to reduce emissions of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter from stationary sources such as coal-burning power plants and industrial facilities—the primary contributors to industrial smog.
Figure 18.23
Ways to prevent, reduce, or disperse emissions of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter from stationary sources, especially coal-burning power plants and industrial facilities.
Critical Thinking:
1. Which two of these solutions do you think are the best ones? Why?
Top: Brittany Courville/ Shutterstock.com. Bottom: racorn/ Shutterstock.com.
One commonly used technological solution is the electrostatic precipitator (
Figure 18.24
, left). It is simple to maintain and can remove up to 99% of the particulate matter it processes. However, it uses a lot of electricity and produces a toxic dust that must be disposed of safely. Another is the wet scrubber (Figure 18.24, right), which uses a stream of water droplets to dissolve and remove up to 98% of and 98% of the particulate matter in smokestack emissions. However, it produces waste in the form of sludge that must be disposed of in a landfill.
Figure 18.24
An electrostatic precipitator (left) and a wet scrubber (right) are used to reduce particulate and emissions from coal-burning power and industrial plants.
Learning from Nature
A team of biomimicry researchers called Refish has developed a portable, energy-efficient device that removes particulates from air and can be mounted anywhere. It is based on certain plant leaves that have hair-like growths on their surfaces that trap particulates. When rain falls on these leaves, it dissolves the particulate matter, some of which is then absorbed by the plant and used as a nutrient.
Figure 18.25 lists several ways to prevent and reduce emissions from motor vehicles, the primary contributors to photochemical smog. In more-developed countries, many of these solutions have been successful (see the Case Study that follows). However, the already poor air quality in urban areas of many less-developed countries is worsening because of the sharp increase in the number of motor vehicles without use of adequate pollution control technology.
Figure 18.25
Ways to prevent or reduce emissions from motor vehicles.
Critical Thinking:
1. Which two of these solutions do you think are the best ones? Why?
Top: egd/ Shutterstock.com. Bottom: Tyler Olson/ Shutterstock.com.
Case Study
Revisiting Air Pollution in Los Angeles
In 2018, Los Angeles (LA) (
Core Case Study) was ranked highest among all U.S. cities in ozone pollution (as it has for 18 years) and in the number of unhealthy air days, according to the American Lung Association.
The factors contributing to air pollution in LA have not gone away. LA has had the worst smog for 19 of the 20 years that the American Lung Association has been evaluating its annual air pollution. Currently, the area’s largest sources of pollutants are the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Most of the ships that use these ports burn dirty diesel fuel—a major source of particulate pollution. In addition, the number of motor vehicles in this urban area has grown dramatically and the city has a high concentration of power plants.
Greater LA’s location also affects its air pollution levels. It is an urban area surrounded by mountains on three sides and an ocean on the fourth side. Prevailing westerly ocean breezes blow pollution inland where it becomes trapped against the mountain ranges and builds up during thermal inversions (Figure 18.9, right). Another factor is climate change, which is projected to make its air pollution problems worse by increasing the number of hot, sunny days that increase the rate of ozone formation.
Even with these challenges, LA has managed to cut its pollution to the point where in 2017, it could report the lowest pollution levels since 1999 when the American Lung Association began reporting annually on overall urban air quality in the United States. Consequently, the city sees more clear days than it saw in the 1960s and 1970s. (Compare
Figure 18.26
with Figure 18.1)
Figure 18.26
A clear day in downtown Los Angeles.
Gerry Boughan/ Shutterstock.com
How did LA manage to make such improvements? Several analysts argue that the key development was the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970. Others cite the fast-growing grassroots citizen efforts of the 1960s and 1970s, which ultimately led to the passage of that landmark legislation. The strength of the law—a reflection of the strength of the grassroots effort—forced specific and meaningful changes that led to cleaner air in LA and in urban areas throughout the United States.
For example, as LA air worsened in the 1960s, carmakers were dragging their feet in developing pollution control technology. In 1975, more than two decades after anti-smog protests began in Los Angeles, carmakers were finally required to install catalytic converters in all new cars. This was a key technological development, according to the California Air Resources Board, and it would not have come about if the Clean Air Act had not been passed.
The Los Angeles and Long Beach ports also reduced their contributions to air pollution in compliance with the law. Since 2005, they reduced their emissions of particulate matter from the burning of diesel fuel by more than 73%. The ports accomplished this mostly by using cleaner-burning cranes, machinery, and trucks, and cleaner, low-sulfur fuel.
In the United States, Canada, and a number of European counties cars and trucks are required to have catalytic converters, which reduce tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons. However, thieves are removing catalytic converters from cars to extract and sell its highly valuable palladium. Over the next 10 to 20 years, new technologies could help all countries have cleaner air through improved engine and emission systems and hybrid-electric, plug-in hybrid, and all-electric vehicles (see
Figure 16.4
).
18.6dReducing Indoor Air Pollution
Little effort has been devoted to reducing indoor air pollution, even though it poses a greater threat to human health than does outdoor air pollution. Air pollution experts suggest several ways to prevent or reduce indoor air pollution, as shown in
Figure 18.27
.
Figure 18.27
Ways to prevent or reduce indoor air pollution.
Critical Thinking:
1. Which two of these solutions do you think are the best ones? Why?
Top: Tribalium/ Shutterstock.com. Bottom: PATSTOCK/AGE Fotostock.
In less-developed countries, indoor air pollution from open fires (
Figure 18.15) and inefficient stoves that burn wood, charcoal, or coal could be reduced. More people could use inexpensive clay or metal stoves that burn fuels more efficiently and vent their exhausts to the outside, or they could use stoves that use solar energy to cook food (see
Figure 16.16
) in sunny areas.
One way to reduce indoor air pollution in a home is to have plenty of houseplants. Studies show that they can reduce more than 80% of indoor toxins within a few days. Plants that do a good job of purifying air include Devil’s Ivy, English Ivy, African Violets, and Peace Lily.
Figure 18.28
lists some ways in which you can reduce your exposure to indoor air pollution.
Figure 18.28
Individuals matter: Ways to reduce your exposure to indoor air pollution.
Critical Thinking:
Which three of these actions do you think are the most important ones to take? Why? 18.7aChemical Threats to the Ozone Layer
The ozone layer in the stratosphere (Figure 18.2) is a vital form of natural capital that supports all life on land and in shallow aquatic environments by keeping 95% of the sun’s harmful ultraviolet (UV-A and UV-B) radiation from reaching the earth’s surface and harming us and many other species.
However, measurements taken by researchers revealed a considerable seasonal depletion, or thinning, of ozone concentrations in the stratosphere above Antarctica (
Figure 18.29
) and above the Arctic since the 1970s. Similar measurements reveal slight overall ozone thinning everywhere except over the tropics. The loss of ozone over Antarctica has been called an ozone hole. A more accurate term is ozone thinning because the ozone depletion varies with altitude and location.
Figure 18.29
Natural capital degradation: The colorized satellite image shows ozone thinning over Antarctica during October of 2018 at its annual peak extent. Ozone depletion of 50% or more occurred in the center blue area.
NASA Ozone Watch/Katy Mersmann
When the seasonal thinning ends each year, huge masses of ozone-depleted air above Antarctica flow northward, and these masses linger for a few weeks over parts of Australia, New Zealand, South America, and South Africa. This has raised biologically damaging UV-B levels in these areas by 3–10%, and in some years by as much as 20%.
Based on ozone-level measurements and on mathematical and chemical models, the overwhelming consensus of researchers in this field is that ozone depletion in the stratosphere poses a serious threat to humans, other animals, and some primary producers (mostly plants) that use sunlight to support the earth’s food webs.
In 1988, scientists discovered that similar but usually less severe ozone thinning occurs over the Arctic from February to June, resulting in a typical ozone loss of 11–38% (compared to a typical 50% loss above Antarctica). When this body of air above the Arctic breaks up each year, large masses of ozone-depleted air flow south to linger over parts of Europe, North America, and Asia. However, models indicate that the Arctic is unlikely to develop the large-scale ozone thinning found over the Antarctic.
The origin of this dangerous environmental threat began in 1930 with the accidental discovery of the first chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), a compound that contains carbon, chlorine, and fluorine. Chemists soon developed similar compounds to create a family of highly useful CFCs, known by their trade name Freons™.
These chemically unreactive, odorless, nonflammable, nontoxic, and noncorrosive compounds were thought to be dream chemicals. Inexpensive to manufacture, they became popular as coolants in air conditioners and refrigerators, propellants in aerosol spray cans, cleansers for electronic parts such as computer chips, fumigants for granaries and ships’ cargo holds, and gases used to make insulation and packaging.
It turned out that CFCs were too good to be true. Starting in 1974 with the work of chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina (
Individuals Matter 18.1
), scientists showed that CFCs are persistent chemicals that reach the stratosphere and destroy some of its protective ozone. Satellite data and other measurements and models indicate that 75–85% of the observed ozone losses in the stratosphere since 1976 resulted from people releasing CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals into the troposphere from human activities beginning in the 1950s.
Individuals Matter 18.1
Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina—A Scientific Story of Expertise, Courage, and Persistence
Hal Garb/AFP/Getty Images; Donna Cove, Mit/University of California, San Diego
In 1974, calculations by the late Sherwood Rowland (left photo) and Mario Molina (right photo), chemists at the University of California–Irvine, indicated that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were lowering the average concentration of ozone in the stratosphere. They also found that CFCs are persistent, remaining in the stratosphere for hundreds of years. During that time, they noted, each CFC molecule can breakdown hundreds of ozone molecules.
These scientists decided they had an ethical obligation to go public with the results of their research. They shocked both the scientific community and the $28-billion-per-year CFC industry by calling for an immediate ban of CFCs in spray cans, for which substitutes were available.
The CFC industry (led by DuPont) was a powerful, well-funded adversary with a lot of profits and jobs at stake. It attacked Rowland’s and Molina’s calculations and conclusions, but the two researchers held their ground, expanded their research, and explained their results to other scientists, elected officials, and the media. After 14 years of delaying tactics, DuPont officials acknowledged in 1988 that CFCs were depleting the ozone layer, and they agreed to stop producing them and to sell higher-priced alternatives that their chemists had developed.
In 1995, Rowland and Molina received the Nobel Prize in chemistry for their work on CFCs.
Rowland and Molina came to four major conclusions. First, once CFCs are put into the atmosphere, these persistent chemicals remain there for a long time. Second, over 11–20 years, these compounds rise into the stratosphere through convection, random drift, and the turbulent mixing of air in the lower atmosphere. Third, once they reach the stratosphere, the CFC molecules break down under the influence of high-energy UV radiation. This releases highly reactive chlorine atoms (Cl), as well as atoms of fluorine (F) and bromine (Br), all of which accelerate the breakdown of ozone into and O in a cyclic chain of chemical reactions. This process destroys ozone faster than it forms in some parts of the stratosphere.
Fourth, after entering the troposphere, these long-lived chemicals eventually reached the stratosphere. There they began destroying ozone faster than it was being formed. Each CFC molecule can last in the stratosphere for 65–385 years, depending on its type. During that time, each chlorine atom released during the breakdown of CFCs can break down hundreds of molecules. Such ozone depletion is a disruption of one of the earth’s most important forms of natural capital that helps sustain life and the world’s economies.
CFCs are not the only ozone-depleting chemicals. Others are halons and hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs) (used in fire extinguishers), methyl bromide (a widely used fumigant), hydrogen chloride (emitted into the stratosphere by the launches of certain space vehicles), and cleaning solvents such as carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, n-propyl bromide, and hexachlorobutadiene. While in the troposphere, CFCs also act as greenhouse gases that help to warm the lower atmosphere and contribute to climate change.
8.7cReversing Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
According to researchers in this field, we should immediately stop producing all ozone-depleting chemicals. However, models and measurements indicate that even with immediate and sustained action, it will take 35 to 60 years for the earth’s ozone layer to recover the levels of ozone it had in the 1960s and it could take about 100 years for it to recover to pre-1950 levels.
In 1987, representatives of 36 nations met in Montreal, Canada, and developed the Montreal Protocol. This treaty’s goal was to cut emissions of CFCs (but no other ozone-depleting chemicals) by about 35% between 1989 and 2000. After hearing more bad news about seasonal ozone thinning above Antarctica in 1989, representatives of 93 countries had more meetings and in 1992 adopted the Copenhagen Amendment, which accelerated the phase-out of CFCs and added some other key ozone-depleting chemicals to the agreement.
The Montreal Protocol is viewed as the world’s most successful global environmental agreement. It set an important precedent because nations and companies worked together and used a prevention approach to solve a serious environmental problem.
This approach worked for three reasons. First, there was convincing and dramatic scientific evidence of a serious problem. Second, CFCs were produced by a small number of international companies and this meant there was less corporate resistance to finding a solution. Third, the certainty that CFC sales would decline over a period of years because of government bans unleashed the economic and creative resources of the private sector to find even more profitable substitute chemicals.
Substitutes are available for most uses of CFCs. However, the most widely used substitutes are hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which also act as greenhouse gases during their trip to the stratosphere. An HFC molecule can be up to 10,000 times more potent in warming the atmosphere than a molecule of . The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that global use of HFCs is growing rapidly and that they need to be quickly replaced with substitutes that do not deplete ozone in the stratosphere or act as greenhouse gases while they are in the troposphere. Several companies have developed HFC substitutes that need to be evaluated.
In addition, there is a growing consensus among scientists that the Montreal Protocol should also be used to regulate the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide , which is released from fertilizers and livestock manure. It remains in the troposphere for about 100 years and then migrates to the stratosphere where it can destroy ozone.
Researchers led by Martyn Chipperfield of the University of Leeds, using in new atmospheric chemistry modeling, calculated that, without the benefit of the Montreal Protocol, the Antarctic ozone hole would likely have grown by another 40% by 2013 and that the ozone layer around the globe would have been thinned by 15%. Deaths other harmful effects of ozone thinning would also have been much worse.
These international agreements on protecting stratospheric ozone are working. According to NASA scientists, between 2000 and 2018, ozone thinning in the stratosphere above Antarctica (
Figure 18.29
), which peaks in September and October, had shrunk by an area equal to about one-third the area of the continental United States. If this trend continues, the ozone layer over Antarctica could return to 1980 levels by 2050. However, a 2018 study by 22 scientists at various research centers in the United States and Europe found that concentration of ozone in the portion of the ozone layer over the mid-latitudes where most of the world’s people live has not risen since the 1990s.
The landmark international agreements on stratospheric ozone, now signed by all 196 of the world’s countries, are important examples of successful global cooperation in response to a serious global environmental problem. This is also an example of the win-win principle of sustainability in action. However, more needs to be done to stop companies in China and other East Asian countries from illegally producing a banned chlorofluorocarbon (CFC-11).
Big Ideas
1. Outdoor air pollution, in the form of industrial smog, photochemical smog, and acid deposition, and indoor air pollution are serious global problems.
2. Each year, about 8 million people die from the effects of outdoor and indoor air pollution, with around half of these deaths occurring in less-developed countries.
3. We need to give top priority to preventing outdoor and indoor air pollution throughout the world and ozone depletion in the stratosphere.
Doing Environmental Science
4. Find out whether or not the buildings at your school have been tested for radon. If so, what were the results? What has been done about any areas with unacceptable levels of radon? If this testing has not been done, talk with school officials about having it done. You could also complete this exercise for the house or building where you live and run a test for the presence of radon there. (Radon testing kits are available at affordable prices in most hardware stores, drug stores, and home centers.)
5.
Data Analysis
Coal often contains sulfur (S) as an impurity that is released as gaseous during combustion, and is one of six primary air pollutants monitored by the EPA. The U.S. Clean Air Act limits sulfur emissions from large coal-fired boilers to 0.54 kilograms (1.2 pounds) of sulfur per million Btus (British thermal units) of heat generated. (; .)
1. Given that coal burned in power plants has a heating value of 27.5 million Btus per metric ton (25 million Btus per ton), determine the number of kilograms (and pounds) of coal needed to produce 1 million Btus of heat.
2. If all of the sulfur in the coal is released to the atmosphere during combustion, what is the maximum percentage of sulfur that the coal can contain and still allow the utility to meet the standards of the Clean Air Act?
3. Tying It All TogetherLos Angeles Air Pollution and Sustainability
4.
5.
barteverett/ Shutterstock.com
6. In the chapter’s
Core Case Study, we learned about how human activities can create massive and harmful air pollution that builds up over time, especially over urban areas such as Los Angeles, California. We saw how a grassroots movement of people concerned about the resulting problems led to a process that has improved air quality over LA. We saw how important it was to pass strict legislation to limit emissions from various sources of pollution. In this chapter, we learned that in passing such limits, we can help prevent not only air pollution, but also acid deposition and the further thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer.
7. We can apply the six principles of sustainability to help reduce the harmful effects of air pollution, acid deposition, and stratospheric ozone depletion. We can reduce emissions of pollutants and ozone-depleting chemicals by relying more on direct and indirect forms of solar energy than on fossil fuels; recycling and reusing matter resources much more widely than we do now; and mimicking biodiversity by using a variety of often locally available renewable energy resources in place of fossil fuels, especially coal. We can advance toward these goals by including the harmful environmental and health costs of fossil fuel use in market prices; seeking win-win solutions that will benefit both the economy and the environment; and giving high priority to passing along to future generations an environment in which they too can thrive.
18.7cReversing Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
According to researchers in this field, we should immediately stop producing all ozone-depleting chemicals. However, models and measurements indicate that even with immediate and sustained action, it will take 35 to 60 years for the earth’s ozone layer to recover the levels of ozone it had in the 1960s and it could take about 100 years for it to recover to pre-1950 levels.
In 1987, representatives of 36 nations met in Montreal, Canada, and developed the Montreal Protocol. This treaty’s goal was to cut emissions of CFCs (but no other ozone-depleting chemicals) by about 35% between 1989 and 2000. After hearing more bad news about seasonal ozone thinning above Antarctica in 1989, representatives of 93 countries had more meetings and in 1992 adopted the Copenhagen Amendment, which accelerated the phase-out of CFCs and added some other key ozone-depleting chemicals to the agreement.
The Montreal Protocol is viewed as the world’s most successful global environmental agreement. It set an important precedent because nations and companies worked together and used a prevention approach to solve a serious environmental problem.
This approach worked for three reasons. First, there was convincing and dramatic scientific evidence of a serious problem. Second, CFCs were produced by a small number of international companies and this meant there was less corporate resistance to finding a solution. Third, the certainty that CFC sales would decline over a period of years because of government bans unleashed the economic and creative resources of the private sector to find even more profitable substitute chemicals.
Substitutes are available for most uses of CFCs. However, the most widely used substitutes are hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which also act as greenhouse gases during their trip to the stratosphere. An HFC molecule can be up to 10,000 times more potent in warming the atmosphere than a molecule of . The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that global use of HFCs is growing rapidly and that they need to be quickly replaced with substitutes that do not deplete ozone in the stratosphere or act as greenhouse gases while they are in the troposphere. Several companies have developed HFC substitutes that need to be evaluated.
In addition, there is a growing consensus among scientists that the Montreal Protocol should also be used to regulate the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide , which is released from fertilizers and livestock manure. It remains in the troposphere for about 100 years and then migrates to the stratosphere where it can destroy ozone.
Researchers led by Martyn Chipperfield of the University of Leeds, using in new atmospheric chemistry modeling, calculated that, without the benefit of the Montreal Protocol, the Antarctic ozone hole would likely have grown by another 40% by 2013 and that the ozone layer around the globe would have been thinned by 15%. Deaths other harmful effects of ozone thinning would also have been much worse.
These international agreements on protecting stratospheric ozone are working. According to NASA scientists, between 2000 and 2018, ozone thinning in the stratosphere above Antarctica (
Figure 18.29
), which peaks in September and October, had shrunk by an area equal to about one-third the area of the continental United States. If this trend continues, the ozone layer over Antarctica could return to 1980 levels by 2050. However, a 2018 study by 22 scientists at various research centers in the United States and Europe found that concentration of ozone in the portion of the ozone layer over the mid-latitudes where most of the world’s people live has not risen since the 1990s.
The landmark international agreements on stratospheric ozone, now signed by all 196 of the world’s countries, are important examples of successful global cooperation in response to a serious global environmental problem. This is also an example of the win-win principle of sustainability in action. However, more needs to be done to stop companies in China and other East Asian countries from illegally producing a banned chlorofluorocarbon (CFC-11).
Big Ideas
Outdoor air pollution, in the form of industrial smog, photochemical smog, and 18.7bWhy Does Ozone Depletion Matter?
Why should we care about ozone depletion?
Figure 18.30
lists some of the harmful effects of stratospheric ozone thinning. One effect is that more biologically damaging UV-A and UV-B radiation will reach the earth’s surface. This increased UV radiation will likely lead to rising numbers of eye cataracts, damaging sunburns, and skin cancers.
Figure 18.31
lists ways in which you can protect yourself from harmful UV radiation.
Figure 18.30
Harmful effects of decreased levels of ozone in the stratosphere.
Critical Thinking:
1. Which three of these effects do you think are the most threatening? Why?
Figure 18.31
Individuals matter: Ways to reduce your exposure to harmful UV radiation.
Critical Thinking:
1. Which of these precautions do you already take? Which others would you consider doing?
Another serious threat from ozone depletion and the resulting increase in UV radiation reaching the planet’s surface is the possible impairment or destruction of phytoplankton, especially in Antarctic waters. These tiny marine plants play a key role in removing from the atmosphere and they form the base of many ocean food webs. Greatly decreasing their population would degrade the vital ecological services they provide. The loss of plankton could accelerate projected climate change and ocean acidification by reducing the capacity of the oceans to remove the that human activities are adding to the atmosphere.
· acid deposition, and indoor air pollution are serious global problems.
· Each year, about 8 million people die from the effects of outdoor and indoor air pollution, with around half of these deaths occurring in less-developed countries.
· We need to give top priority to preventing outdoor and indoor air pollution throughout the world and ozone depletion in the stratosphere.
· 18.7aChemical Threats to the Ozone Layer
· The ozone layer in the stratosphere (Figure 18.2) is a vital form of natural capital that supports all life on land and in shallow aquatic environments by keeping 95% of the sun’s harmful ultraviolet (UV-A and UV-B) radiation from reaching the earth’s surface and harming us and many other species.
· However, measurements taken by researchers revealed a considerable seasonal depletion, or thinning, of ozone concentrations in the stratosphere above Antarctica (Figure 18.29) and above the Arctic since the 1970s. Similar measurements reveal slight overall ozone thinning everywhere except over the tropics. The loss of ozone over Antarctica has been called an ozone hole. A more accurate term is ozone thinning because the ozone depletion varies with altitude and location.
· Figure 18.29
· Natural capital degradation: The colorized satellite image shows ozone thinning over Antarctica during October of 2018 at its annual peak extent. Ozone depletion of 50% or more occurred in the center blue area.
·
· NASA Ozone Watch/Katy Mersmann
· When the seasonal thinning ends each year, huge masses of ozone-depleted air above Antarctica flow northward, and these masses linger for a few weeks over parts of Australia, New Zealand, South America, and South Africa. This has raised biologically damaging UV-B levels in these areas by 3–10%, and in some years by as much as 20%.
· Based on ozone-level measurements and on mathematical and chemical models, the overwhelming consensus of researchers in this field is that ozone depletion in the stratosphere poses a serious threat to humans, other animals, and some primary producers (mostly plants) that use sunlight to support the earth’s food webs.
· In 1988, scientists discovered that similar but usually less severe ozone thinning occurs over the Arctic from February to June, resulting in a typical ozone loss of 11–38% (compared to a typical 50% loss above Antarctica). When this body of air above the Arctic breaks up each year, large masses of ozone-depleted air flow south to linger over parts of Europe, North America, and Asia. However, models indicate that the Arctic is unlikely to develop the large-scale ozone thinning found over the Antarctic.
· The origin of this dangerous environmental threat began in 1930 with the accidental discovery of the first chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), a compound that contains carbon, chlorine, and fluorine. Chemists soon developed similar compounds to create a family of highly useful CFCs, known by their trade name Freons™.
· These chemically unreactive, odorless, nonflammable, nontoxic, and noncorrosive compounds were thought to be dream chemicals. Inexpensive to manufacture, they became popular as coolants in air conditioners and refrigerators, propellants in aerosol spray cans, cleansers for electronic parts such as computer chips, fumigants for granaries and ships’ cargo holds, and gases used to make insulation and packaging.
· It turned out that CFCs were too good to be true. Starting in 1974 with the work of chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina (Individuals Matter 18.1), scientists showed that CFCs are persistent chemicals that reach the stratosphere and destroy some of its protective ozone. Satellite data and other measurements and models indicate that 75–85% of the observed ozone losses in the stratosphere since 1976 resulted from people releasing CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals into the troposphere from human activities beginning in the 1950s.
· Individuals Matter 18.1
· Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina—A Scientific Story of Expertise, Courage, and Persistence
·
· Hal Garb/AFP/Getty Images; Donna Cove, Mit/University of California, San Diego
· In 1974, calculations by the late Sherwood Rowland (left photo) and Mario Molina (right photo), chemists at the University of California–Irvine, indicated that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were lowering the average concentration of ozone in the stratosphere. They also found that CFCs are persistent, remaining in the stratosphere for hundreds of years. During that time, they noted, each CFC molecule can breakdown hundreds of ozone molecules.
· These scientists decided they had an ethical obligation to go public with the results of their research. They shocked both the scientific community and the $28-billion-per-year CFC industry by calling for an immediate ban of CFCs in spray cans, for which substitutes were available.
· The CFC industry (led by DuPont) was a powerful, well-funded adversary with a lot of profits and jobs at stake. It attacked Rowland’s and Molina’s calculations and conclusions, but the two researchers held their ground, expanded their research, and explained their results to other scientists, elected officials, and the media. After 14 years of delaying tactics, DuPont officials acknowledged in 1988 that CFCs were depleting the ozone layer, and they agreed to stop producing them and to sell higher-priced alternatives that their chemists had developed.
· In 1995, Rowland and Molina received the Nobel Prize in chemistry for their work on CFCs.
· Rowland and Molina came to four major conclusions. First, once CFCs are put into the atmosphere, these persistent chemicals remain there for a long time. Second, over 11–20 years, these compounds rise into the stratosphere through convection, random drift, and the turbulent mixing of air in the lower atmosphere. Third, once they reach the stratosphere, the CFC molecules break down under the influence of high-energy UV radiation. This releases highly reactive chlorine atoms (Cl), as well as atoms of fluorine (F) and bromine (Br), all of which accelerate the breakdown of ozone into and O in a cyclic chain of chemical reactions. This process destroys ozone faster than it forms in some parts of the stratosphere.
· Fourth, after entering the troposphere, these long-lived chemicals eventually reached the stratosphere. There they began destroying ozone faster than it was being formed. Each CFC molecule can last in the stratosphere for 65–385 years, depending on its type. During that time, each chlorine atom released during the breakdown of CFCs can break down hundreds of molecules. Such ozone depletion is a disruption of one of the earth’s most important forms of natural capital that helps sustain life and the world’s economies.
· CFCs are not the only ozone-depleting chemicals. Others are halons and hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs) (used in fire extinguishers), methyl bromide (a widely used fumigant), hydrogen chloride (emitted into the stratosphere by the launches of certain space vehicles), and cleaning solvents such as carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, n-propyl bromide, and hexachlorobutadiene. While in the troposphere, CFCs also act as greenhouse gases that help to warm the lower atmosphere and contribute to climate change.
·
Chapter Introduction
·
Core Case Study
Los Angeles Air Pollution
·
18.1
The Atmosphere
·
18.1a
The Atmosphere Consists of Several Layers
·
18.1b
The Troposphere and Stratosphere
·
18.2
Outdoor Air Pollution
·
18.2a
Natural and Human Sources of Air Pollution
·
18.2b
Major Outdoor Air Pollutants
·
18.2c
Industrial Smog
·
18.2d
Factors Affecting Outdoor Air Pollution
·
18.3
Acid Deposition
·
18.3a
Acid Deposition
·
18.3b
Harmful Effects of Acid Deposition
·
18.3c
Reducing Acid Deposition
·
18.4
Indoor Air Pollution
·
18.4a
Indoor Air Pollution Is a Serious Problem
·
18.5
Health Effects of Air Pollution
·
18.5a
Overwhelming Our Body’s Natural Air Pollution Defenses
·
18
.5b
Air Pollution Is a Big Killer
·
18.6
Reducing Air Pollution
·
18.6a
Laws and Regulations
·
18.6b
Using the Marketplace to Reduce Outdoor Air P
ollution
·
18.6c
Reducing Outdoor Air Pollution
·
18.6d
Reducing Indoor Air Pollution
·
18.7
Ozone Layer Depletion
·
18.7a
Chemical Threats to the Ozone Layer
·
18.7b
Why Does Ozone Depletion Matter?
·
18.7c
Reversing Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
·
Tying It All Together
Los Angeles Air Pollution and Sustainability
·
Chapter Review
Chapter Introduction
Core Case StudyLos Angeles Air Pollution
18.1The Atmosphere
18.1aThe Atmosphere Consists of Several Layers
18.1bThe Troposphere and Stratosphere
18.2Outdoor Air Pollution
18.2aNatural and Human Sources of Air Pollution
18.2bMajor Outdoor Air Pollutants
18.2cIndustrial Smog
18.2dFactors Affecting Outdoor Air Pollution
18.3Acid Deposition
18.3aAcid Deposition
18.3bHarmful Effects of Acid Deposition
18.3cReducing Acid Deposition
18.4Indoor Air Pollution
18.4aIndoor Air Pollution Is a Serious Problem
18.5Health Effects of Air Pollution
18.5aOverwhelming Our Body’s Natural Air Pollution Defenses
18.5bAir Pollution Is a Big Killer
18.6Reducing Air Pollution
18.6aLaws and Regulations
18.6bUsing the Marketplace to Reduce Outdoor Air Pollution
18.6cReducing Outdoor Air Pollution
18.6dReducing Indoor Air Pollution
18.7Ozone Layer Depletion
18.7aChemical Threats to the Ozone Layer
18.7bWhy Does Ozone Depletion Matter?
18.7cReversing Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
Tying It All TogetherLos Angeles Air Pollution and Sustainability
Chapter Review
Livingin the Environment (MindTap Course List)
20th Edition
ISBN-13: 978-0357142202, ISBN-10: 0170291502
ENV330 Module 5a AVP Transcript
Title Slide
Narrator: Our current energy path is unsustainable, as illustrated by the BP Deepwater Gulf of Mexico
disaster, perhaps the single largest degradation of natural capital in history. Our ever increasing
population, each with an exponentially increasing energy demand has caused us to take larger and larger
environmental risks to try to satisfy our insatiable appetite for ever increasing amounts of energy. With
every additional 1000 barrels of oil or 1000 lbs. of coal burned, we add hundreds of tons of CO2 to the
atmosphere, causing ever accelerating Global Climate Change. We are clearly on a dangerously
unsustainable path.
We must transition to sustainable energy sources, and increase the efficiency of all energy using
activities. There is no other viable option.
Slide 2
Title: Energy Consumption
Slide content:
[image of a big city at night from the air]
Narrator: The total annual energy use in the US has almost tripled in the last 60 years, although per
capita US consumption has begun to level off in the last 20 years. In the last 25 years unsustainable US
coal and oil consumption has increased dramatically and is projected to continue increasing dramatically
for the next few decades.
Per capita energy consumption in the US, Scandinavia, Saudi Arabia and Australia far exceed per capita
energy use anywhere else in the world – with a few minor exceptions. Global use of renewable,
sustainable energy is almost three times as great as in the US, where only about 7% of energy is
sustainably produced. The global use of Geothermal, Solar and Wind power is 2 ½ times greater in other
countries than in the US.
Why do you think the world as a whole relies more on renewable energy than the United States does?
Slide 3
Title: Our Unsustainable Approach to Meeting Our Energy Needs
Slide Content:
[image of a body of water with sludge covering the watergrass]
Narrator: The recent BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill is an ongoing environmental tragedy which illustrates the
folly of our unsustainable approach to meeting our energy needs. This environmental catastrophe will
have ecological and economic ramifications for decades. Perhaps it will stimulate public and
governmental change towards a sustainable, green, renewable energy future – if we are wise enough to
make the change.
Slide 4
Title: Political Response to BP Oil Spill in Gulf
Slide Content:
[image of President and Michelle Obama and Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus standing on a dock]
Narrator: President Barack Obama stated, in response to the BP Oil spill: “the time has come, once and
for all, for this nation to embrace a clean energy future”.
He also stated that the nation “must acknowledge that there are inherent risks to drilling four miles
beneath the surface of the Earth, risks that are bound to increase the harder oil extraction becomes.”
Additionally he stated “if we refuse to take into account the full cost of our fossil fuel addiction – if we don’t
factor in the environmental costs and national security costs and the true economic costs – we will have
missed our best chance.”
He went on to discuss the need to create more energy efficient cars and homes, more nuclear power
plants, and rolling back the tax breaks given to oil companies.
These are hopeful signs that perhaps the US government will finally act to push us into a sustainable
energy future!
Slide 5
Title: Net Energy Ratios
Slide Content:
[image of an electric heater]
Narrator: In considering which energy sources are sustainable, we must consider their net energy ratios
for particular tasks. The net energy ratio calculation takes into account all the energy used to discover,
mine, transport and use the energy source. A useful rule of thumb is that any energies with low net
ratios, like nuclear energy, usually have to be heavily subsidized by the taxpayer to keep its price
artificially low so that it can compete in the marketplace with high net energy sources such as solar and
ethanol. In other words, subsidies and tax breaks must be used to level the playing field for inefficient, low
net energy power sources.
Question: Are you OK with government using your tax dollars in this way? Can you think of a more
sustainable way that government could use your tax dollars to encourage renewable energy development
and production?
Let’s compare the net energy efficiency for heating a building using nuclear generated electricity to run an
electric resistance heater. Compare it with using passive solar to heat the building. Passive solar energy
is using free sunlight energy and intelligent architectural design of buildings to maximize this “free” source
of energy.
Net energy efficiency is calculated by multiplying the efficiencies at each step of the process from the
source to the end usage. Using nuclear power to heat the space is only 14% efficient, whereas using
passive solar heating is 90% efficient! And, if the entire nuclear fuel cycle efficiencies are considered –
the storage and production of long-term nuclear waste — the nuclear option is only about 8% efficient,
that is, there is a 92% WASTE of energy compared with only an 8% waste of energy using passive solar.
So, for heating buildings, using passive solar, and using natural gas have the highest net energy ratios,
whereas electric heating using nuclear generated electricity, has the worst.
Question: What is the source of energy you use in your home? In your office? How are they heated?
Although coal has the highest net energy ratio for high-temperature industrial heat generation, it has a
very low net energy ratio for heating buildings. To be an Earth sustaining society we must learn to use
the appropriate energy for each task so as not to further degrade natural capital.
For transportation, ethanol from sugarcane residues or rapidly growing switch grass, makes the most
sense whereas corn ethanol, oil shale and coal liquefaction the least sense. Using gasoline for
transportation has only half the net energy benefits of using ethanol from sugarcane residue, as has been
done in Brazil for decades.
Question: Why do you think we continue to use inefficient ecologically destructive energies with low net
energy ratios that require government tax subsidies? It makes no scientific or economic sense!
Slide 6
Title: The Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Slide Content:
[image of a large nuclear power plant]
Narrator: Let’s consider the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. In order to account for the REAL costs of nuclear
power, one must include the entire life cycle, and all the costs of nuclear energy. This includes not only
the mining, processing, transportation, power plant production, and transmission of electric energy I just
mentioned. To truly compare the real costs of nuclear power generation we must ALSO consider the
long-term storage of radioactive wastes – and I DO MEAN LONG TERM – 1000’s to 10’s of thousands of
years – from mining to the operation of the nuclear power plant (the whole plant becomes a radioactive
disposal issue eventually), to the cost of protection of the facilities from terrorists, and the protection of the
radioactive wastes from terrorists who could use it to create nuclear weapons, and to the cost of safely
transporting all the radioactive wastes to a permanent storage facility that must be maintained and
protected for thousands of years!
By the way, NO SAFE PERMANENT STORAGE FACILITY HAS BEEN FOUND YET, after 50 years of
searching.
No wonder the nuclear power industry must receive such huge subsidies from the government in order to
be profitable!
Questions:
Do you think that the market price of nuclear-generated electricity should include all the
costs of the fuel cycle?
Would sustainable, renewable energies like solar and wind be cheaper in comparison to
nuclear if we had to pay the whole cost of nuclear power in our electric bills, or if it was
included in the price of goods or services using those energies?
What would happen if we had to pay the cost of Global Climate change caused by the
burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil in our electric bills?
Why isn’t this the way electricity is priced?
End of Presentation
FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM IS
PROVIDED BY…
[ HORN HONKS ]
Narrator: AIR POLLUTION —
WE CAN’T ALWAYS SEE IT, BUT ITS
EFFECTS CAN BE DEADLY.
TO FIND WAYS TO REDUCE ITS
IMPACT
WE NEED TO KNOW EXACTLY
WHAT POLLUTANTS ARE EMITTED
AND HOW THEY CHANGE AS THEY
TRAVEL THROUGH THE
ATMOSPHERE.
AT THIS POINT, WE PRIMARILY
HAVE SULFATE PARTICLES.
USING CUTTING-EDGE
INSTRUMENTS
AERODYNE RESEARCH
CAN DETECT TINY
CONCENTRATIONS OF
POLLUTANTS IN REAL TIME
TRACKING THEM BACK TO THEIR
SOURCES
AND SHOWING HOW THEY EVOLVE
HOUR BY HOUR
UNDER THE EFFECTS OF
SUNLIGHT AND WEATHER.
IN MEXICO CITY
LUISA MOLINA IS LEADING A
GROUP OF OVER 450 SCIENTISTS
IN THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE
STUDY EVER CONDUCTED
OF ONE CITY’S AIR EMISSIONS.
SAMPLING ITS PLUME OF
POLLUTANTS FROM CRADLE TO
GRAVE
THE TEAM HOPES TO LEARN HOW
THE CITY’S POLLUTION
AFFECTS THE SURROUNDING
REGIONS AND EVEN THE GLOBAL
CLIMATE.
TODAY, THE RAPID INCREASE OF
POPULATION AND
INDUSTRIALIZATION
IS CAUSING INCREASING
CONCERNS ABOUT AIR
POLLUTION.
BOTH RESEARCHERS HOPE TO
DISCOVER
WHAT’S CAUSING THE MOST
DAMAGE
AND FIND WAYS TO REDUCE THE
HUMAN AND GLOBAL IMPACT.
[ HORN HONKS ]
Kolb: ONE OF THE REAL FACTS
THAT WE ALL HAVE TO DEAL WITH
IS THAT PEOPLE MAKE POLLUTION
AND AS THE POPULATION OF THE
EARTH GROWS
UNLESS WE’RE VERY CLEVER AND
WORK VERY HARD
THE LEVELS OF POLLUTION WE
ALL HAVE TO LIVE WITH
WILL GROW ALONG WITH IT.
WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND
WHICH POLLUTANTS ARE THE
ONES THAT WEMUSTCONTROL
AND WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH
EITHER CHANGES IN OUR
TECHNOLOGY
OR CHANGES IN OUR LIFESTYLES
WHICH REDUCE THE HEAVY
POLLUTION BURDENS
THAT WE EMIT INTO THE
ATMOSPHERE.
Narrator: CHARLES KOLB IS
PRESIDENT OF AERODYNE
RESEARCH
A COMPANY THAT SPECIALIZES IN
STUDYING AIR POLLUTION
AND DESIGNING INSTRUMENTS TO
HELP MEASURE IT.
A NEW AEROSOL MASSSPEC
BODY.
Kolb: OUR AIR-POLLUTION
RESEARCH
FOCUSES ON WHAT’S EMITTED BY
VARIOUS POLLUTION SOURCES —
CARS, TRUCKS, PLANES,
FACTORIES, AND MANY OTHER
SOURCES —
AND TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEY
CHANGE THE ATMOSPHERE
AND HOW THAT CHANGED
ATMOSPHERE
TURNS AROUND AND IMPACTS
PEOPLE AND THE CLIMATE
AND THE ECOSYSTEMS THAT WE
WANT TO PRESERVE.
Narrator: AIR POLLUTANTS EXIST
AS HARMFUL GASES
OR AS AEROSOLS.
AEROSOLS ARE MICROSCOPIC
SOLID OR LIQUID PARTICLES
SUSPENDED IN THE AIR
AND THESE POLLUTANTS CAN
HAVE DEADLY EFFECTS.
Kolb: MOST OF US CAN ONLY
SURVIVE A MINUTE OR SO
WITHOUT A FRESH BREATH OF AIR
AND IF THE AIR CONTAINS
SUBSTANCES
WHICH ARE GOING TO REALLY
HURT YOUR HEALTH
YOU’D HATE TO THINK THAT
YOU’RE SHORTENING YOUR LIFE
WITH EVERY BREATH OF AIR YOU
TAKE.
Narrator: THE WORST
AIR-POLLUTION DISASTER ON
RECORD
OCCURRED IN LONDON IN
DECEMBER OF 1952.
AT THIS TIME, LONDONERS STILL
CONSUMED LOTS OF COAL
WHICH LED TO LARGE AMOUNTS
OF POLLUTANTS IN THE AIR
INCLUDING BLACK CARBON, OR
SOOT PARTICLES
AND SULFUR DIOXIDE.
AND THIS TOXIC MIX TURNED
FATAL.
Kolb: THE PARTICLE LOADING GOT
SO HEAVY DURING ONE EPISODE
THAT THE SO-CALLED KILLER
FOGS
ACTUALLY KILLED MANY
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE
OVER ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF.
Narrator: THANKS TO
REGULATIONS TO REDUCE THESE
POLLUTANTS
EVENTS LIKE THIS ARE RARE
TODAY.
HOWEVER, PUBLIC HEALTH
OFFICIAL SESTIMATE
THAT 70,000 AMERICANS DIE
PREMATURELY EACH YEAR
DUE TO AIR POLLUTION.
IN ORDER TO MONITOR THESE
POLLUTANTS
KOLB AND HIS TEAM AT
AERODYNE RESEARCH
DEVELOPED A SERIES
OF REVOLUTIONARY
LABORATORY-GRADE
INSTRUMENTS
THAT COULD BE DEPLOYED FROM
A MOBILE VAN.
Kolb: WE’VE DEVELOPED SOME
VERY CAPABLE
AND VERY FAST RESEARCH
INSTRUMENTS
THAT CAN BE DEPLOYED IN THE
ATMOSPHERE
AND MEASURE RIGHT AWAY
WHAT’S THERE.
Narrator: TRADITIONALLY
SAMPLES HAD TO BE BROUGHT
BACK TO THE LAB TO BE
ANALYZED
BUT WITH THE MOBILE VAN,
MEASUREMENTS ARE
INSTANTANEOUS.
THE BENEFIT OF USING REAL-TIME
INSTRUMENTATION
IS THAT IT MAXIMIZES THE
SCIENTIFIC IMPACT
THAT WE’RE ABLE TO HAVE WHEN
WE’RE OUT IN THE FIELD.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE’RE PICKING UP
A GOOD SULFATE PLUME.
Kolb: THE MOBILE LAB IS
EQUIPPED WITH INSTRUMENTS
THAT CAN MEASURE EVERY
SECOND OR SO.
IF YOU’RE CHARACTERIZING AN
EMISSIONS SOURCE
AND ITS EMISSIONS ARE
CHANGING SECOND BY SECOND
AS A VEHICLE MIGHT AS IT STOPS
AND STARTS
OR ACCELERATES OR GOES UP A
HILL
THEN IF YOU DON’T MEASURE
SECOND BY SECOND
YOU WON’T GET THE RIGHT
ANSWER.
NITRATES? YEAH, I SEE SOME
NITRATES.
Narrator: ONE KEY INSTRUMENT
IS AERODYNE’S AEROSOL MASS
SPECTROMETER
WHICH MEASURES THE TINY
SUSPENDED PARTICLES
IN THE ATMOSPHERE.
WHAT’S REALLY SPECIAL ABOUT
IT
IS THAT USUALLY WHEN YOU’RE
LOOKING AT PARTICLES
YOU JUST KNOW SORT OF HOW
MANY PARTICLES ARE IN YOUR
SAMPLE.
BUT WHAT THE AMS IS CAPABLE
OF DOING
IS TELLING YOU WHAT THE
CHEMICAL SPECIES
OF EACH OF THOSE PARTICLES IS.
YOU CAN SAY, “OH, YOU KNOW,
THERE’S 1,000 PARTICLES
IN THIS CUBIC CENTIMETER OF
AIR,”
ROUGHLY THIS BIG, BUT YOU CAN
ALSO SAY
“OH, A CERTAIN FRACTION OF
THEM ARE SULFATE
“A CERTAIN FRACTION OF THEM
ARE SOME SORT OF ORGANIC
A CERTAIN FRACTION OF THEM
ARE NITRATE,”
ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
AND SO THAT GIVES YOU A MUCH
STRONGER CAPABILITY
BECAUSE IT TURNS OUT THAT THE
WAY THESE PARTICLES
INTERACT WITH THE
ENVIRONMENT, FOR INSTANCE
HOW THEY MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT
AFFECT GLOBAL WARMING
DEPENDS UPON THEIR
COMPOSITION.
AND HOW THEY MIGHT AFFECT OR
MIGHT NOT AFFECT HUMAN
HEALTH
DEPENDS ON THEIR COMPOSITION
AS WELL AS THEIR SIZE.
Herndon: IF YOU’RE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE HEALTH IMPACTS
YOU’RE MOST CONCERNED
ABOUT THE SIZE OF PARTICLES
THAT ARE SUFFICIENTLY SMALL
SO THAT THEY GO INTO YOUR
LUNGS
DEEP INTO YOUR LUNGS, ALONG
WITH THE GAS FLOW.
AND IN THAT CASE
YOU COULD ACTUALLY BE
INTRODUCING SOME THINGS
INTO YOUR BODY, INTO YOUR
BLOODSTREAM, QUICKLY
THAT HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING
THERE.
Narrator: PARTICLES LESS THAN 10
MICROMETERS IN DIAMETER
JUST A FRACTION OF THE WIDTH
OF A HUMAN HAIR
CAN LODGE DEEP INTO THE
LUNGS.
THOSE SMALLER THAN 2.5
MICROMETERS
CLASSIFIED AS “FINE PARTICLES,”
HAVE BEEN LINKED TO THE MOST
SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEMS.
Kolb: IT CAN LEAD TO A NUMBER
OF MEDICAL COMPLICATIONS
INCLUDING NOT JUST LUNG
DISEASE —
EMPHYSEMA, ASTHMA, POSSIBLY
LUNG CANCER —
BUT CAN ALSO PUT A VERY HIGH
STRAIN ON YOUR HEART
AND CAN LEAD TO HEART
ATTACKS.
Narrator: AERODYNE MEASURES
BOTH THE HAZARDOUS
PARTICLES
AND THE POLLUTANT GASES
BEING EMITTED FROM VARIOUS
SOURCES.
YOU’D THINK YOU’D SEE SOME
SULFATE, BUT I DON’T KNOW.
Kolb: WE WANT TO USE OUR
MOBILE LABORATORY
TO UNDERSTAND POLLUTANTS
THAT ARE DIRECTLY EMITTED
INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.
WE CALL THOSE “PRIMARY
POLLUTANTS.”
WITH A MOBILE LABORATORY
YOU CAN ACTUALLY MAP OUT THE
DISTRIBUTION
OF THE AIR POLLUTANTS
SO THAT YOU HAVE A MUCH
BETTER PICTURE
OF HOW THE POLLUTANTS ARE
DISPERSED
AROUND, SAY, A CITY, OR
AROUND A FACTORY COMPLEX.
IN ADDITION, YOU CAN LOCATE
SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS
BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE A
CONCENTRATION IN A PLUME
AND YOU CAN THEN USE THE
MOBILE LABORATORY
TO ACTUALLY FOLLOW THE
PLUME BACK TO THE SOURCE.
Narrator: VEHICLE EMISSIONS ARE
ONE OF THE SOURCES
OF PRIMARY POLLUTANTS
TRACKED BY AERODYNE.
WHILE THE EMISSIONS FROM AN
INDIVIDUAL CAR
ARE RELATIVELY LOW COMPARED
WITH FACTORIES
IN MANY CITIES, THE MILLIONS OF
VEHICLES ON THE ROAD
ADD UP TO BE THE MOST SERIOUS
THREAT TO CLEAN AIR.
VEHICLE EXHAUST POLLUTANTS
INCLUDE AEROSOLS
AND THESE GASES…
USING THEIR TRACE-GAS
DETECTOR
THE AERODYNE TEAM CAN
MONITOR THESE POLLUTANT
GASES
EVEN AT VERY LOW LEVELS.
BUT THESE POLLUTANTS, BY
THEMSELVES
ARE NOT THE ONLY CONCERN.
SOME PRIMARY POLLUTANTS,
SUCH AS NOx
BECOME EVEN MORE
DANGEROUS
WHEN THEY BEGIN A COMPLEX
CHEMICAL REACTION
AFTER BEING EXPOSED TO
SUNLIGHT.
SECOND BIG JOB WITH THE
MOBILE LAB
IS TO GO OUT AND ACTUALLY
THEN SEE WHAT HAPPENS
TO THOSE PRIMARY POLLUTANTS
AS THEY COOK IN THE
ATMOSPHERE.
THIS CHEMISTRY CAN CREATE
WHAT WE CALL “SECONDARY
POLLUTANTS.”
IT CAN CHEMICALLY CHANGE THE
POLLUTANTS
THAT WERE EMITTED INTO THE
ATMOSPHERE
INTO DIFFERENT AND SOMETIMES
MORE DANGEROUS CHEMICALS.
Narrator: ONE SECONDARY
POLLUTANT THAT CONCERNS
SCIENTISTS IS OZONE.
OZONE IS A GAS MADE UP OF 3
OXYGEN MOLECULES
AND IT CAN HAVE BOTH GOOD
AND BAD EFFECTS
DEPENDING ON WHERE IT’S
LOCATED.
THE STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
LAYER
PROTECTS THE EARTH FROM
HARMFUL ULTRAVIOLET RAYS
BUT GROUND-LEVEL OZONE, IN
THE TROPOSPHERE
IS HIGHLY REACTIVE
AND CAN CAUSE IRRITATION OF
THE RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
PERMANENTLY SCARRING LUNG
TISSUE.
Kolb: OZONE IS A VERY POWERFUL
OXIDANT.
IT CAN KIND OF BLEACH THE
CELLS IN YOUR BODY
AND CAN CREATE A LOT OF
SERIOUS PROBLEMS
BOTH TO PEOPLE, TO OTHER
ANIMALS, AND TO PLANTS.
Narrator: THE MAIN PRECURSORS
IN CREATING OZONE
ARE NITROGEN OXIDES
EMITTED FROM VEHICLES AND
OTHER COMBUSTION SOURCES
AND HYDROCARBONS, THE
RESULT OF COMBUSTION
OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES,
AND VEGETATION.
WHEN THESE POLLUTANTS
INTERACT IN THE PRESENCE OF
SUNLIGHT
THEY PRODUCE GROUND-LEVEL
OZONE.
SUNLIGHT CAUSES NITROGEN
DIOXIDE, NO2
TO SEPARATE INTO NITRIC OXIDE,
“NO,” AND AN OXYGEN ATOM.
THE OXYGEN ATOM
ADDS TO NATURALLY OCCURRING
MOLECULAR OXYGEN, OR O2
TO CREATE OZONE.
BUT THIS IS JUST THE FIRST STEP
IN A CHAIN REACTION OF OZONE
PRODUCTION.
THE REMAINING NITRIC OXIDE
REACTS WITH UNSTABLE
MOLECULES
THAT ARE PRODUCTS OF
HYDROCARBONS
OXIDIZING IN THE ATMOSPHERE
RECREATING NITROGEN DIOXIDE
CAUSING A VICIOUS CYCLE OF
OZONE PRODUCTION.
Kolb: SO OZONE GETS FORMED AS
A SECONDARY POLLUTANT.
IT’S NOT EMITTED DIRECTLY
AND IT’S IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSTAND
NOT ONLY HOW MUCH OZONE IS
IN THE ATMOSPHERE
BUT HOW MUCH OF ITS
PRECURSOR CHEMICALS ARE
THERE
SO WE CAN PREDICT WHAT THE
OZONE WILL LOOK LIKE
AS THE WIND BLOWS THAT
CHEMICAL MIXTURE ACROSS THE
COUNTRYSIDE.
Narrator: AERODYNE’S VAN HAS
BEEN DEPLOYED ALL OVER
NORTH AMERICA
TO HELP ENGINEERS AND
PLANNERS IDENTIFY THE BEST
STRATEGIES
TO REDUCE POLLUTANTS FROM
INDUSTRIES
AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.
Kolb: WE’VE WORKED WITH THE
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT
AUTHORITY
IN NEW YORK CITY
THAT RUNS ABOUT A THIRD OF
THE CITY’S BUSES
TO DETERMINE WHICH TYPES OF
BUSES
EMIT WHAT KINDS OF
POLLUTANTS.
SO ONE CAN TAKE THE MOBILE
LAB AND FOLLOW THE BUSES
AS THEY GO ABOUT THEIR
ROUTES IN THE CITY.
AND AS THEY STOP AND START,
TAKE ON PASSENGERS
ACCELERATE, SLOW DOWN
ONE CAN SEE HOW BOTH THE
PARTICLE POLLUTANTS
AND THE GASEOUS POLLUTANTS
THEY EMIT CHANGE.
THEN YOU CAN TAKE THE SAME
TYPE OF BUS
AND PUT SOME
EMISSION-CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY ON IT —
MAYBE A TRAP THAT TRAPS AND
BURNS THE PARTICLES —
AND YOU CAN SEE WHAT EFFECT
THAT HAS ON THE PARTICLE
EMISSIONS
AND ALSO WHAT EFFECT IT HAS
ON THE GASEOUS EMISSIONS.
Narrator: WHEN KOLB’S TEAM
TESTED THESE BUSES
THEY FOUND SOME UNEXPECTED
RESULTS.
Kolb: THE DIESEL BUSES WITH
PARTICLE TRAPS
DID, INDEED, EMIT ONLY ABOUT A
QUARTER OF THE PARTICLES
THAT NORMAL DIESEL BUSES
EMITTED
BUT THEY DID EMIT A LARGE
AMOUNT OF NITROGEN DIOXIDE
WHICH IS, AGAIN, A GAS THAT IS A
TOXIC AIR POLLUTANT.
SO YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL
WHEN YOU’RE TRYING TO SOLVE
ONE POLLUTION PROBLEM
THAT YOU DON’T CREATE A
SECOND POLLUTION PROBLEM
WHICH MAY BE AS SERIOUS AS
THE FIRST ONE.
Narrator: IN EUROPE AND THE
UNITED STATES
POLICIES HAVE BEEN PUT IN
PLACE TO REDUCE AIR
POLLUTION.
THE CLEAN AIR ACT OF 1970,
WHICH SET LIMITS
ON CONCENTRATIONS OF
CERTAIN POLLUTANTS
ALONG WITH SUBSEQUENT
PROGRAMS
HAS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED
AIR QUALITY.
Kolb: SINCE 1970, WE’VE HAD
FAIRLY STRICT LAWS
WHICH HAVE HELPED STOP THE
INCREASE
IN BAD AIR-POLLUTION EPISODES
AND, IN FACT, IN MOST CITIES
HAVE DECREASED THEM.
BUT IN CITIES WITH RAPID
GROWTH AND WITH CHALLENGING
CLIMATES —
CLIMATES THAT CAN LEAD TO A
LOT OF CHEMISTRY IN THE AIR
AND A LOT OF SECONDARY
POLLUTION FORMATION
THERE ARE CERTAINLY STILL BIG
CHALLENGES LEFT.
Narrator: DEVELOPING INNOVATIVE
WAYS
TO MEASURE PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY POLLUTANTS
IS A NECESSARY FIRST STEP
IN CREATING EFFECTIVE
STRATEGIES FOR PROTECTING
HUMAN HEALTH.
BUT MEASURING THE LOCAL AIR
POLLUTION
FROM CARS AND FACTORIES IS
JUST ONE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE.
ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION
CARRIES POLLUTANT STREAMS
FAR BEYOND THE METROPOLITAN
AREAS WHERE THEY ARE
CREATED
CAUSING REGIONAL AND EVEN
GLOBAL EFFECTS.
AND SO THE POLLUTIONS THAT
ARE CREATED
IN THE LARGE MEGACITIES IN
CHINA
CAN DELIVER VERY HIGH LEVELS
OF POLLUTANTS
ALL ACROSS THE UNITED STATES
JUST AS THE POLLUTION THAT’S
CREATED IN THE MIDWEST
AND THE EASTERN PART OF THE
UNITED STATES
REACHES ALL THE WAY TO
EUROPE.
IT ONLY TAKES ABOUT TWO
WEEKS
FOR AIR TO GO ALL THE WAY
AROUND THE WORLD.
Narrator: AND SOME POLLUTANTS
SUCH AS AEROSOLS
AND GREENHOUSE GASES LIKE
CARBON DIOXIDE AND OZONE
EVEN AFFECT THE GLOBAL
CLIMATE.
SO WE DON’T HAVE THE LUXURY
OF THINKING
THAT IT’S OTHER PEOPLE’S
AIR-POLLUTION PROBLEMS
OTHER PEOPLE’S CLIMATE
PROBLEMS.
IF THEY’RE HAVING PROBLEMS
WE’RE GOING TO HAVE
PROBLEMS, TOO.
Narrator: AND ONE OF THE
BIGGEST EMERGING THREATS
TO THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
IS INCREASED AIR POLLUTION
FROM MEGACITIES.
A MEGACITY IS DEFINED AS
HAVING 10 MILLION OR MORE
INHABITANTS.
CURRENTLY, THERE ARE OVER 20
MEGACITIES WORLDWIDE
AND THAT NUMBER CONTINUES
TO GROW AT AN ALARMING RATE.
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF
PEOPLE CURRENTLY LIVE IN
THESE CITIES
AND IT IS PROJECTED THAT BY
THE MIDDLE OF THE CENTURY
THIS NUMBER WILL BE MULTIPLIED
MANY TIMES OVER
WITH 60% OF THE WORLD’S
POPULATION
LIVING IN URBAN AREAS.
THIS RAPID GROWTH
MEANS AN EVER-RISING TOLL TO
HUMAN HEALTH
UNLESS WE GAIN A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING
OF THE LIFE CYCLE OF AIR
POLLUTANTS.
AND THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT’S
BEING DONE IN MEXICO CITY
FOR THE MILAGRO PROJECT
THE LARGEST COORDINATED
STUDY EVER CONDUCTED
OF MEGACITY AIR POLLUTION.
1, 2, 3.
LUISA MOLINA IS THE PROJECT
COORDINATOR
AND ONE OF THE LEAD
SCIENTISTS ON THIS EFFORT.
Molina: “MILAGRO” STANDS FOR
“MEGACITY INITIATIVE LOCAL AND
GLOBAL RESEARCH
OBSERVATIONS.”
AND WE WERE VERY, VERY
PLEASED
THAT WE WERE ABLE TO FIND AN
ACRONYM, MILAGRO
THAT NOT ONLY FIT THE THEMES
OF OUR MEASUREMENT
CAMPAIGN
BUT IT ALSO MEANS “MIRACLE” IN
SPANISH.
Narrator: IN MARCH 2006
MOLINA GATHERED AN
INTERNATIONAL TEAM OF MORE
THAN 450 SCIENTISTS
TO INVESTIGATE THE EFFECTS OF
LOCAL POLLUTION IN MEXICO CITY
ON THE SURROUNDING REGIONS
AND THE GLOBAL ATMOSPHERE.
THE SCIENTISTS REPRESENT
OVER 50 ACADEMIC AND
RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS
FROM MEXICO, EUROPE, AND THE
UNITED STATES
INCLUDING NASA, THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
AND THE NATIONAL SCIENCE
FOUNDATION.
MEXICO CITY IS AN IDEAL
LOCATION FOR MILAGRO’S
MEGACITY RESEARCH.
SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES
BY MOUNTAINS
POLLUTANTS BECOME TRAPPED
WITHIN THE CITY.
Molina: THERE ARE MANY
REASONS FOR SELECTING
MEXICO CITY.
FIRST OF ALL, MEXICO CITY IS
ONE OF THE LARGEST
MEGACITIES.
IT HAS ABOUT 20 MILLION PEOPLE.
IT IS IN A TROPICAL LATITUDE
SO IT’S REPRESENTATIVE OF
MANY OF THE FUTURE
MEGACITIES
WHICH WILL BE IN ASIA, IN AFRICA.
MEXICO CITY IS AT A HIGH
ALTITUDE
AND THE SOLAR RADIATION IS
VERY STRONG
AND THE PHOTOCHEMISTRY, IT IS
VERY REACTIVE.
AND OF COURSE, WHAT WE HOPE
IS THAT WHAT WE LEARN FROM
MEXICO CITY
IT WILL PROVIDE INSIGHT FOR US
SO THAT WE CAN USE THAT
INSIGHT AND UNDERSTANDING
AND APPLY IT TO OTHER FUTURE
MEGACITIES.
Narrator: WHILE MANY PREVIOUS
STUDIES
REVEALED A GREAT DEAL ABOUT
POLLUTION WITHIN MEXICO CITY
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE
POLLUTION AFTER IT LEFT THE
CITY
AND WHAT ITS EFFECTS WERE ON
THE REGION AND THE GLOBE
HAD NEVER BEEN
SYSTEMATICALLY STUDIED UNTIL
MILAGRO.
SO YOU HAVE ALL THIS
POLLUTION COMING OUT
FROM BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS,
FROM CARS, FROM INDUSTRY.
AND SO THE POLLUTANTS THAT
EMITTED LOCALLY
THE LOCAL EFFECTS WOULD BE
ON THE HEALTH OF THE
POPULATION
AND ON THE AIR QUALITY.
BUT THEN THEY COULD ALSO —
THE REGIONAL IMPACT
WHICH WOULD AFFECT THE
ECOSYSTEM.
AND THEN, ALSO, THERE’S THE
GLOBAL IMPACT
THAT WOULD AFFECT THE
CLIMATE.
SO THIS IS VERY SERIOUS.
Narrator: 24 HOURS A DAY FOR 30
DAYS
THE MILAGRO TEAM COLLECTED
DATA
USING AIRPLANES, RADARS,
WEATHER BALLOONS
AND DOZENS OF SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS.
I BROUGHT HERE TO MEXICO CITY
AN INSTRUMENT WHICH I CALL
THE DIFFERENTIAL
SUPERSATURATION SEPARATOR.
OUR INSTRUMENT IS CALLED
A LONG-PATH DIFFERENTIAL
OPTICAL ABSORPTION
SPECTROMETER.
PHOTOELECTRIC AEROSOL
SENSOR.
A PROTON TRANSFER MASS
SPECTROMETER.
THIS IS WHAT WE CALL A CAPS
PROBE, WHICH STANDS FOR
“CLOUD AEROSOL AND
PRECIPITATION SPECTRA” PROBE.
WHAT IT MEASURES IS AEROSOL
PARTICLES
WHICH ARE THE VERY FINE
PARTICLES IN THE AIR.
AS WE FLY, IT’S IN FRONT OF THE
PLANE
BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE
ENGINE EXHAUST IF IT WAS
FURTHER BACK
SO IT SEES THE AIR FIRST.
AEROSOL AIR COMES THROUGH
THIS PROBE
AND WHAT IS DETECTED IS THE
SIZE OF THE PARTICLES.
BY SIMULTANEOUSLY AND
COLLABORATIVELY GATHERING
THEIR DATA
THE SCIENTISTS WILL HAVE
BETTER INFORMATION
TO CREATE NEW MODELS
FOR PREDICTING THE TRANSPORT
OF POLLUTION
OVER WIDE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS.
Molina: THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS
STUDY, OF MILAGRO
IS TO FOLLOW THE PLUMES
AND FIND OUT WHERE AND
HOWAND WHEN
THE PLUMES ARE TRANSPORTED
TO OTHER REGIONS.
AND SO IT IS VERY IMPORTANT
FOR US
NOT ONLY JUST TO LOOK AT ONE
SITE
BUT TO LOOK AT VARIOUS SITES.
Narrator: TO STUDY THE
MOVEMENT OF PLUMES
THE RESEARCHERS HAVE THREE
MAIN FIXED GROUND SITES —
“T0,” LOCATED IN THE CENTER OF
THE CITY
AND T1 AND T2, TWO POINTS
NORTH OF THE CITY
WHERE THE PREVAILING WINDS
ARE EXPECTED TO CARRY THE
PLUMES.
AT THESE SITES, RESEARCH
TEAMS MEASURE TRACE GASES
AEROSOL CONCENTRATIONS, AND
SOLAR-RADIATION LEVELS
AS WELL AS METEOROLOGICAL
DATA.
Molina: WE HAVE TO MEASURE THE
PRESSURE
WE MEASURE THE TEMPERATURE
WE MEASURE THE RELATIVE
HUMIDITY
AND THE WIND SPEED — THE WIND
DIRECTION.
THESE ALL AFFECT THE
TRANSPORT OF THE POLLUTANTS.
Narrator: THE AERODYNE TEAM
TRAVELED TO MEXICO CITY
AS PART OF THE MILAGRO
CAMPAIGN.
TO HELP MONITOR THE PLUME
THEY SET UP THEIR MOBILE LAB
IN A UNIQUE, ELEVATED LOCATION
BETWEEN T0 AND T1, CALLED
PICO DE TRES PADRES.
WE’RE ABOUT A THOUSAND
METERS ABOVE EACH OF THESE
TWO SITES.
SO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AT
THIS LOCATION
TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE
LOFTED PLUME THAT’S COMING
TO US.
Narrator: IN THE MORNING
THIS LOCATION HAS RELATIVELY
CLEAN AIR
SINCE IT IS ABOVE THE
BOUNDARY LAYER
A LAYER NEAR THE GROUND
THAT DOES NOT MIX WELL WITH
THE ATMOSPHERE ABOVE.
THIS LAYER TRAPS THE
POLLUTION BELOW
IN THE BASIN OF MEXICO CITY.
BUT AS THE SUN HEATS THE
EARTH, THE BOUNDARY LAYER
RISES.
Herndon: BUT WHAT WE’RE
OBSERVING RIGHT NOW —
WE’RE ABOVE THE MIXING
HEIGHT.
ALL OF THE POLLUTION AND
EMISSIONS THAT ARE TAKING
PLACE
ARE NOT ABLE TO MIX UP AND
COME UP TO THIS LOCATION.
WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THE SUN
COMES UP
AND BEGINS TO HEAT THE
SURFACE OF THE EARTH.
AND JUST LIKE PUTTING A PAN OF
BOILING WATER ONTO THE STOVE
IT BEGINS TO MIX AND BOIL,
MOVING THE AIR UPWARD,
UPWARD.
AND SO IT MIXES UP AND UP AND
UP.
AND WE’RE LOCATED UP HERE AT
THIS LOCATION
AND SUDDENLY WE BEGIN TO SEE
MUCH OF THE CITY POLLUTION
AND EMISSIONS COMING TO US
BUT IT’S A BIT LATER THAN WHEN
THE SUN COMES UP.
WE’RE SEEING INCREASES IN
CARBON MONOXIDE
CARBON DIOXIDE, AND NOx.
Narrator: AS THE SUN PEAKS AND
CONTINUES THROUGH THE
AFTERNOON
THE POLLUTANTS CHEMICALLY
CHANGE AS THEY REACT IN THE
ATMOSPHERE.
Herndon: WHAT WE OBSERVED AT
T0
WE SAW A MIXTURE OF PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY POLLUTANT
SPECIES.
UP HERE, THE CHARACTER OF
JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING WE
HAVE SEEN
INDICATES THAT IT’S VERY
SECONDARY, VERY PROCESSED.
SO, FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW
WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
LOOK AT THE FIRST STEPS
AS THE PLUME IS MOVING
DOWNWIND AS TO WHAT IS
HAPPENING
WHAT CHANGES ARE TAKING
PLACE
IN THE COMPOSITION OF THOSE
EMISSIONS.
Narrator: IN ADDITION TO GROUND
SITES
RESEARCHERS ALSO MEASURED
POLLUTANTS
FROM AIRPLANES AND
SATELLITES
TO CORROBORATE THEIR DATA
AND TO HELP TRACK THE PLUME.
Molina: IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR
US TO DO AN INTEGRATED
MEASUREMENT.
IN ORDER FOR YOU TO LOOK AT
THE OUTFLOW
NOT ONLY DO YOU NEED A
GROUND BASE
BUT YOU ALSO NEED TO HAVE A
LARGER COVERAGE
SO THE AIRPLANE IS VERY
ESSENTIAL.
AND THEN THE SATELLITE
OBSERVATION
PROVIDE EVEN LARGER INTO
SPACE.
WE WANTED TO USE DIFFERENT
TECHNIQUES
THAT COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER
SO IT’S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US
TO HAVE COMPLIMENTARY
MEASUREMENTS.
IT’S IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE
INTERCOMPARISON.
IN FACT, SOME OF THE
MEASUREMENTS DURING THE
CAMPAIGN
WERE DESIGNED EXACTLY FOR
THAT PURPOSE.
Narrator: LONG-TERM, MILAGRO
WILL LEAD TO BETTER MODELS
OF HOW EMISSIONS ARE
TRANSPORTED AND
TRANSFORMED
HELPING COUNTRIES MANAGE
AND IMPROVE AIR QUALITY.
PRELIMINARY DATA SHOW THAT
THE AEROSOL PLUME FROM
MEXICO CITY
TRAVELS OUTSIDE THE CITY AND
RISES HIGH INTO THE
TROPOSPHERE.
HERE, THE PREVAILING
HIGH-ALTITUDE WINDS
CAN POTENTIALLY TRANSPORT
THE POLLUTANTS LONG
DISTANCES
EVEN ACROSS CONTINENTS.
BUT IT WILL BE MANY YEARS
BEFORE MOLINA AND HER TEAM
HAVE DEFINITIVE RESULTS.
Molina: MILAGRO — RIGHT NOW WE
ONLY FINISH THE FIRST PHASE
ONE
THE MEASUREMENT, THE
OBSERVATION STAGE.
AND THEN THE NEXT PHASE IS
NOW WE ARE IN THE PROCESS
OF DOING THE DATA ANALYSIS
SO WE HAVE ALL OF THIS TONS
AND TONS OF DATA.
THEN ALL THIS INFORMATION ARE
NOW FIT INTO MODELS.
THEN WE ARE GOING TO PRESENT
THE RESULTS
TO THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT.
Narrator: WHILE THE MEXICAN
GOVERNMENT
HAS RECENTLY MADE STRIDES IN
REDUCING EMISSIONS
WITH STRICTER REGULATION
POLICIES AND CLEANER FUEL
MEXICO CITY IS JUST ONE OF A
GROWING NUMBER OF
MEGACITIES.
Molina: WE HOPE THAT BY
STUDYING MEXICO CITY
USE THIS AS A CASE STUDY
THEN WE CAN FIND OUT HOW
WOULD THE FUTURE MEGACITIES
THAT ARE COMING UP
HOW WOULD THEY INFLUENCE
THE ATMOSPHERIC
COMPOSITIONS
ON A LARGE RREGIONAL-GLOBAL
SCALE.
Kolb: IF WE DON’T CONTROL THE
CHANGES WE MAKE TO THE
ATMOSPHERE
THE ATMOSPHERE MAY BEGIN TO
CONTROL
HOW MANY OF US ARE LEFT ON
THE PLANET.
SO IT’S VITAL THAT WE
UNDERSTAND
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE
POLLUTANTS WE EMIT
AND WE UNDERSTAND HOW TO
BETTER CONTROL THEM
SO THE PLANET CAN CONTINUE
TO BE A HABITABLE PLACE
FOR BOTH PEOPLE AND THE REST
OF THE CREATURES WE SHARE IT
WITH.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
