Credit goes to Aimee20 and Cheryl Pakidis for their help on the project.
A Journey Into Sustainability
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Adverts
Well, this is interesting. Yesterday in Sustainability, we were assigned to make an advertising campaign based on Chapter 2 of Living Green by Greg Horn. My part in the project was to design advertising posters for the rest of the group, using characters from the X-Men comic series as endorsements. And here's what I've got...
More on this as it develops...
Credit goes to Aimee20 and Cheryl Pakidis for their help on the project.
Credit goes to Aimee20 and Cheryl Pakidis for their help on the project.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Going Nuclear
In an earlier post ("Making A Statement" to be precise), I brought up the question of nuclear power as a sustainable energy source. At the time, I felt that nuclear power should be explored, due to it's success in the American submarine fleet and that radiation could be dealt with more effectively with research. Well, now it's time to put that statement to the test. With the help of this page, I'll be examining the arguments for and against nuclear power, and drawing my own conclusion from the examination. Let's see how sustainable nuclear power truly is.
On one side of the aisle, we have nuclear energy as a clean, dependable energy source. Proponents claim that nuclear power is more energy efficient than fossil fuels, and is less hazardous to the environment. The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition notes that, "It produces no harmful greenhouse gases, isolates its waste from the environment, and requires less area to produce the same amount of electricity as other sources." Another interesting point about nuclear energy is that it supposedly kills less people than fossil fuel pollution does. According to Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh, ". . . air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year." By contrast, nuclear energy is much more harmless. With a thorough safety net in place for meltdowns, Cohen says it would take, "25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning." But what about all that radiation? Surely that has to have some negative impact on people's health and well-being. Well, according to Dr. James Lovelock of the Oxford University Green College, the radiation produced by a nuclear power plant is hardly a factor. He states that, "The radiation from a reactor is tiny: about as much as that from our own bodies." So wait, nuclear power produces manageable waste, gives off little radiation, produces no greenhouse gases, and has a potentially smaller death toll than fossil fuels? It makes me wonder why it isn't implemented everywhere.
Well, it seems nuclear dissidents have a few answers as to why. The process of mining the materials needed to produce a nuclear reactor and refining them can be a health risk in and of itself. The Physicians for Social Responsibility write that, "Uranium miners experience higher rates of lung cancer, tuberculosis, and other respiratory diseases." Additionally, there is some concern over how to deal with the waste products of nuclear facilities. Helen Caldecott, President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, writes that, "the nuclear industry has yet to determine how safely to dispose of this deadly material." What's more, this waste won't be in short supply either. Caldecott further mentions that, "Each regular 1000 megawatt generates 30 tons of extremely potent nuclear waste annually." So it seems that nuclear power cannot even hope to be a sustainable option without first developing a method for getting rid of nuclear waste. Even if such a method were to arise, however, there is still the possibility of a severe nuclear meltdown. Despite the proponents arguing that a meltdown is unlikely or that it will take a large number of meltdowns to match the killing potential of coal, some argue that the effects of a nuclear accident could be catastrophic. Lisbeth D. Gronlund, a Senior Scientist of the Union of Concerned Scientists, warns that, "People exposed to high levels of radiation will die or suffer other health consequences within days or weeks." Alright, but a good safety net can prevent a nuclear accident, right? Unfortunately, safety regulations for nuclear plants have been loosely enforced, according to Gronlund. So we can add tightening safety regulations to the laundry list of things that need to happen before nuclear energy is viable.
I personally am not discouraged by that laundry list. I see these problems as challenges to be overcome rather than causes for abandonment. A way to disintegrate nuclear waste can be developed. Safety regulations can be more strictly enforced. Breathing apparatuses can be supplied to uranium miners. Protocols can be developed to contain meltdowns. As far as I'm concerned, these things can be done. The only question is, would it be worth it? It would undoubtedly cost a lot of money. Would all the money needed to do this be well-spent? Personally, I feel that if nuclear energy is as clean and dependable as it's proponents say it is, I would think so. We need some method that can replace fossil fuels as an electricity source. It would be folly to rule out nuclear power just because of some hurdles to jump over.
But don't take my word for it. Go look at the page and decide for yourself.
On one side of the aisle, we have nuclear energy as a clean, dependable energy source. Proponents claim that nuclear power is more energy efficient than fossil fuels, and is less hazardous to the environment. The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition notes that, "It produces no harmful greenhouse gases, isolates its waste from the environment, and requires less area to produce the same amount of electricity as other sources." Another interesting point about nuclear energy is that it supposedly kills less people than fossil fuel pollution does. According to Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh, ". . . air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year." By contrast, nuclear energy is much more harmless. With a thorough safety net in place for meltdowns, Cohen says it would take, "25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning." But what about all that radiation? Surely that has to have some negative impact on people's health and well-being. Well, according to Dr. James Lovelock of the Oxford University Green College, the radiation produced by a nuclear power plant is hardly a factor. He states that, "The radiation from a reactor is tiny: about as much as that from our own bodies." So wait, nuclear power produces manageable waste, gives off little radiation, produces no greenhouse gases, and has a potentially smaller death toll than fossil fuels? It makes me wonder why it isn't implemented everywhere.
Well, it seems nuclear dissidents have a few answers as to why. The process of mining the materials needed to produce a nuclear reactor and refining them can be a health risk in and of itself. The Physicians for Social Responsibility write that, "Uranium miners experience higher rates of lung cancer, tuberculosis, and other respiratory diseases." Additionally, there is some concern over how to deal with the waste products of nuclear facilities. Helen Caldecott, President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, writes that, "the nuclear industry has yet to determine how safely to dispose of this deadly material." What's more, this waste won't be in short supply either. Caldecott further mentions that, "Each regular 1000 megawatt generates 30 tons of extremely potent nuclear waste annually." So it seems that nuclear power cannot even hope to be a sustainable option without first developing a method for getting rid of nuclear waste. Even if such a method were to arise, however, there is still the possibility of a severe nuclear meltdown. Despite the proponents arguing that a meltdown is unlikely or that it will take a large number of meltdowns to match the killing potential of coal, some argue that the effects of a nuclear accident could be catastrophic. Lisbeth D. Gronlund, a Senior Scientist of the Union of Concerned Scientists, warns that, "People exposed to high levels of radiation will die or suffer other health consequences within days or weeks." Alright, but a good safety net can prevent a nuclear accident, right? Unfortunately, safety regulations for nuclear plants have been loosely enforced, according to Gronlund. So we can add tightening safety regulations to the laundry list of things that need to happen before nuclear energy is viable.
I personally am not discouraged by that laundry list. I see these problems as challenges to be overcome rather than causes for abandonment. A way to disintegrate nuclear waste can be developed. Safety regulations can be more strictly enforced. Breathing apparatuses can be supplied to uranium miners. Protocols can be developed to contain meltdowns. As far as I'm concerned, these things can be done. The only question is, would it be worth it? It would undoubtedly cost a lot of money. Would all the money needed to do this be well-spent? Personally, I feel that if nuclear energy is as clean and dependable as it's proponents say it is, I would think so. We need some method that can replace fossil fuels as an electricity source. It would be folly to rule out nuclear power just because of some hurdles to jump over.
But don't take my word for it. Go look at the page and decide for yourself.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
An Influential Blog Post
Currently in our sustainability class, we're reading a book called EcoCities, which, as the title suggests, is about constructing cities to be more eco-friendly. We're diving into the first chapter tomorrow (which I've already read). The first chapter is entitled, "As We Build, So Shall We Live," and the overarching theme of this chapter is that the cities we build impact how we behave in them. For example, the book suggests that if we build our cities around cars and private transportation, with roads, highways, and greater distances between buildings, then we become dependent on cars as a means of efficient transport.
The notion of the environment affecting one's behavior raises an interesting question: how have the cities I've lived in affected me? How have they impacted what I do, what I experience, and how I think? For the purpose of answering these questions, I will be cataloguing my influences in this blog post.
Before one can talk about an environment, though, one must talk about the environment itself. I've had the experience of living in several different environments, with the only common thread between them being that they were all suburbs. My family largely used cars to get around, and generally having an easygoing, carefree lifestyle. We weren't afraid of walking, though. In Kansas City, we often walked to and from school. We also weren't afraid of using public transit. We took advantage of the school bus systems in Cincinnati, Milwaukee, and Saint Augustine to shuttle us to school. But we still used our cars quite often, for grocery shopping, for going downtown, or going to friend's houses. So in summary, my environment was a curious duality of of seemingly mutually exclusive values. We took full advantage of convenience, yet we weren't afraid to forsake it when we so desired.
Maybe that goes some way to explaining why I feel inconsistent in my outlook on sustainability. On one hand, I'm perfectly willing to conserve resources by using public transit and recycling, and I'm fine with picking up trash on the side of the street as well. On the other hand, sometimes I don't give a rat's butt about environmentalism. I don't always pick up trash, for example, only when I feel like it. I also use up electricity, because I enjoy video games and my computer. I also don't turn my computer off at night.
In addition, some environmentalist readings make me roll my eyes, because they seem so preachy. I feel that, in some ways, the proposals made in some of the readings infringe on the convenience I had utilized throughout most of my life. Yet the environmentalist part of me concurs with what is being said. I'm not willing to make radical changes, yet I do agree that something needs to be done about environmental issues.
This split attitude affects my experiences as well. I often spend most of my time indoors, and that's often enough to satisfy me, and yet some of the best times of my life have been had out in freshwater lakes or in natural areas. I feel as though I don't fit in any particular pattern of behavior on this dichotomy. I think how I lived and where I lived played a part in that.
The notion of the environment affecting one's behavior raises an interesting question: how have the cities I've lived in affected me? How have they impacted what I do, what I experience, and how I think? For the purpose of answering these questions, I will be cataloguing my influences in this blog post.
Before one can talk about an environment, though, one must talk about the environment itself. I've had the experience of living in several different environments, with the only common thread between them being that they were all suburbs. My family largely used cars to get around, and generally having an easygoing, carefree lifestyle. We weren't afraid of walking, though. In Kansas City, we often walked to and from school. We also weren't afraid of using public transit. We took advantage of the school bus systems in Cincinnati, Milwaukee, and Saint Augustine to shuttle us to school. But we still used our cars quite often, for grocery shopping, for going downtown, or going to friend's houses. So in summary, my environment was a curious duality of of seemingly mutually exclusive values. We took full advantage of convenience, yet we weren't afraid to forsake it when we so desired.
Maybe that goes some way to explaining why I feel inconsistent in my outlook on sustainability. On one hand, I'm perfectly willing to conserve resources by using public transit and recycling, and I'm fine with picking up trash on the side of the street as well. On the other hand, sometimes I don't give a rat's butt about environmentalism. I don't always pick up trash, for example, only when I feel like it. I also use up electricity, because I enjoy video games and my computer. I also don't turn my computer off at night.
In addition, some environmentalist readings make me roll my eyes, because they seem so preachy. I feel that, in some ways, the proposals made in some of the readings infringe on the convenience I had utilized throughout most of my life. Yet the environmentalist part of me concurs with what is being said. I'm not willing to make radical changes, yet I do agree that something needs to be done about environmental issues.
This split attitude affects my experiences as well. I often spend most of my time indoors, and that's often enough to satisfy me, and yet some of the best times of my life have been had out in freshwater lakes or in natural areas. I feel as though I don't fit in any particular pattern of behavior on this dichotomy. I think how I lived and where I lived played a part in that.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Making a Statement
Now that I've talked all about sustainability and what it is, I figure it's time to answer some questions about where I stand in terms of sustainability (largely because my grade depends on it). A personal statement, if you will. What issues do I focus on when I think of sustainability? What questions do I have about sustainability? What sustainable practices am I committed to and feel strongly about now? What can I and the world do to be more sustainable? To the end of answering these questions, I devote this lonely patch of digital space.
I've felt in the back of my mind that alternative energy sources should be more rigorously pursued. Mountains of data exist on the polluting effects of fossil fuel exhaust and its contribution to global climate change, but more importantly than that, I feel, is the cost of extracting these fossil fuels. Gas is becoming much more expensive to obtain, what with heated politics in the Middle East,and the increased difficulty of finding crude oil. If the demand for petroleum continues, I feel that the next generation will be forced to empty more cash out of their wallets to pay for it. Whether it's hydrogen fuel cells or solar power or electric power, there needs to be a new and affordable energy source that can contest with fossil fuels.
On that note, I've got a few questions regarding sustainability in the modern world. Why hasn't alternative energy been pursued more rigorously? Aside from being a more environmentally-conscious measure, alternative energy would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Really, it just seems like the smart thing to do. Might it have something to do with cost? What might the cost be to implement such measures? Aside from that, though, would nuclear power count as a sustainable energy source? I'm fairly sure it doesn't draw upon a large amount of natural resources, and it's power output is tremendous. It's seen successful use in submarines, so why not use it to power cities? We can research methods to more effectively deal with radiation, after all.
As for me, I am currently committed to recycling. That's not to say that I've been perfect at it or never threw a plastic bottle in a trash can, but I do recycle. The way I see it, if a resource can be reused, then it might as well be rather than just sitting in a pile somewhere. Paper, plastic, aluminum, glass, all of it should be recycled. I value recycling, and I think that everyone should do it.
Beyond that, though, I'm not really that sustainable. In the future, however, I could perform such measures as buying a more fuel-efficient car, buying locally grown, organic produce (hey, it reduces the amount of resources needed to ship it), and grow some produce if at all possible. I could also invest in Energy Star appliances and donate money for research into alternative energy sources. As for the rest of planet Earth, I don't expect a whole lot from the world's population, but if there's one thing I would love for them to do, I'd like them to work on alternative energy. That would solve so many problems.
And that concludes my personal statement. My concerns regarding sustainability, my inquiries into it, my actions and convictions within it, and my future goals for becoming more sustainable are now within public viewing. This empty digital space has now become full.
I've felt in the back of my mind that alternative energy sources should be more rigorously pursued. Mountains of data exist on the polluting effects of fossil fuel exhaust and its contribution to global climate change, but more importantly than that, I feel, is the cost of extracting these fossil fuels. Gas is becoming much more expensive to obtain, what with heated politics in the Middle East,and the increased difficulty of finding crude oil. If the demand for petroleum continues, I feel that the next generation will be forced to empty more cash out of their wallets to pay for it. Whether it's hydrogen fuel cells or solar power or electric power, there needs to be a new and affordable energy source that can contest with fossil fuels.
On that note, I've got a few questions regarding sustainability in the modern world. Why hasn't alternative energy been pursued more rigorously? Aside from being a more environmentally-conscious measure, alternative energy would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Really, it just seems like the smart thing to do. Might it have something to do with cost? What might the cost be to implement such measures? Aside from that, though, would nuclear power count as a sustainable energy source? I'm fairly sure it doesn't draw upon a large amount of natural resources, and it's power output is tremendous. It's seen successful use in submarines, so why not use it to power cities? We can research methods to more effectively deal with radiation, after all.
As for me, I am currently committed to recycling. That's not to say that I've been perfect at it or never threw a plastic bottle in a trash can, but I do recycle. The way I see it, if a resource can be reused, then it might as well be rather than just sitting in a pile somewhere. Paper, plastic, aluminum, glass, all of it should be recycled. I value recycling, and I think that everyone should do it.
Beyond that, though, I'm not really that sustainable. In the future, however, I could perform such measures as buying a more fuel-efficient car, buying locally grown, organic produce (hey, it reduces the amount of resources needed to ship it), and grow some produce if at all possible. I could also invest in Energy Star appliances and donate money for research into alternative energy sources. As for the rest of planet Earth, I don't expect a whole lot from the world's population, but if there's one thing I would love for them to do, I'd like them to work on alternative energy. That would solve so many problems.
And that concludes my personal statement. My concerns regarding sustainability, my inquiries into it, my actions and convictions within it, and my future goals for becoming more sustainable are now within public viewing. This empty digital space has now become full.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Sustainability = Efficiency
Recently, I was asked to do a paper on what sustainability had to do with me. Writing about it, and using the EPA's article on sustainability to help write it, made me think about how to define sustainability. Ultimately, my definition was a mere paraphrase of the EPA's definition, made for the purpose of using a scholarly source to figure out how sustainability impacted me. My teacher calls for a more personal definition. So if I had to define sustainability, it would go like this: sustainability is the efficient use of resources.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary has this among its definitions of efficiency: "effective operation as measured by a comparison of production with cost (as in energy, time, and money)." In other words, the best possible outcome is achieved with the least possible expenditure of necessary materials. This seems to be the ultimate goal of sustainability, really. The idea is to conserve resources and protect the environment for future generations, and sustainability is a solution that calls for the use of as few of our current resources as possible. If that isn't efficiency, then I don't know what is.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary has this among its definitions of efficiency: "effective operation as measured by a comparison of production with cost (as in energy, time, and money)." In other words, the best possible outcome is achieved with the least possible expenditure of necessary materials. This seems to be the ultimate goal of sustainability, really. The idea is to conserve resources and protect the environment for future generations, and sustainability is a solution that calls for the use of as few of our current resources as possible. If that isn't efficiency, then I don't know what is.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" -Lao Tzu
Hey, a quote stolen from The Quotations Page is as good enough an icebreaker as any.
Hello! My name is J.G. Whaley. I'm a 20 year old male college student currently enrolled in a Sustainability class in my university, and this blog is needed to obtain the best possible grade. As I learn about the concept of sustainability, what it means, what it entails, and what must be done to achieve it, I'll be posting my thoughts, impressions, and actions in this blog on a weekly basis.
Currently, I must write a simple one-page paper on what sustainablity has to do with my life, so I better get going on that. Bye for now!
Hello! My name is J.G. Whaley. I'm a 20 year old male college student currently enrolled in a Sustainability class in my university, and this blog is needed to obtain the best possible grade. As I learn about the concept of sustainability, what it means, what it entails, and what must be done to achieve it, I'll be posting my thoughts, impressions, and actions in this blog on a weekly basis.
Currently, I must write a simple one-page paper on what sustainablity has to do with my life, so I better get going on that. Bye for now!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)