China's Dry Mountain Winter Olympics

    As the 2022 Winter Olympics draw closer, China makes a strong push to host these games. As part of their bid China is looking to build several large ski resorts to host events. While building these resorts would take away the land from local farmers in the region, they welcome this addition acknowledging that these places would bring more jobs and revenue, an estimated $500 a month for employees, than farming does in this region.
    China’s bid and potential building of these massive resorts would come at a huge cost. It is estimated to cost over $250 million dollars to construct all the facilities. The largest cost, however, would be the environmental impact of constructing these facilities. One problem is that in order to build, large amounts of trees, many of which are in National Parks, need to be cut down to create the slopes. The International Olympic Committee states that it will replant the trees in other areas; however, this number is very difficult to monitor and causes other erosional problems. The second and larger problem is the impact this would have on China’s water supply. Beijing’s mountainous region receives only about 16 inches of rain a year making it a semiarid region. The water it does receive cannot be used for farming purposes but is redirected to South mainly to be used for snow generation at these resorts. It was estimated that in 2011,“Beijing used an average of about a billion gallons of water a year, or enough for 42,000 people” in 11 ski resorts.
    As much revenue as the resorts would generate for this region I find it very unstable and not worth the environmental risk to build the needed ski resorts. With China’s population on the rise, I do not see how water can continue to be used on a luxury while there is a real threat of potentially running out of drinking water. It makes more sense to have these events take place in areas where snow is more natural available, instead of the measly average of 8.3 inches in China. No matter how sustainable and ecofriendly the IOC tries to make this event it will not be as environmentally friendly as simply leaving these forested areas untouched. With China’s horrible air quality issues I do not think they can afford to cut down any trees. It’s very hard to ignore the revenue that would be provided from the resorts. However, as the amount of water continues to decrease there may not even be enough water for the resorts to remain open. Now huge irreversible environmental impacts have been made on this region for basically no gain. Personally I think it is better to sacrifice the potential economic gains for a sounder environment and water security.

--Sam Moxey

After Death

    There are many people across the world that happily compost organic items in their homes or backyards and then use the material to fertilize their gardens. I wonder how many of those people would be willing to use the result of a composted human body in the same manner.
    Something that I have not truly considered is the environmental, spatial or economic cost of death; the physical disposal of the human body.  Approximately 56 million people die each year [in the US]. What happens to all of those bodies? “Death in the US is a 13.4 billion dollar industry”, which takes in to account cremation, funeral home costs, embalming, and burial, among others.  Since the recession hit in 2008, the percentage of people choosing cremation over embalming and a casket burial drastically increased largely because of the difference in cost. The price of cremation is on average, $2,570, as opposed to traditional burial which is $7,755. While cremation financially costs less and takes up less land compared to traditional burials, an issue that environmentalists are concerned about is the release of carbon dioxide from the burning process which contributes to greenhouse gases. With new technologies and ideas being thought up every day, there are now more than just two options for what to do with the deceased. An alternative to fire cremation is a process called alkaline hydrolysis which places the body in a steel chamber filled with “water, potassium hydroxide and heat to break down bodies into peptides, soaps, salts and sugars”.
    Yet another alternative is a proposal from Katrina Spade, a sustainable design architect, to compost human bodies. She has designed a building for human composting that will be three stories high with a vault called the “core” in the center. The core could hold about thirty people at any given time. There would need to be nitrogen rich material added such as wood chips or alfalfa and heat to begin the microbial activities. The process is likely to take weeks or a couple of months.
    I think this idea is interesting and makes sense for animals but it is difficult to imagine a pile of bodies degrading in the center core of a building. The concept is a good one: it doesn’t add to greenhouse gas emissions, it wouldn’t use land space for cement tombs, and it seems to be a very cheap option. But it seems that the actual process may take away some of the individualism and ceremony of remembering a person in death. To me it seems like the biggest issue is getting the general public on board. For this to be successful there would need to be volunteers who would put this in their will that they would like to be composted as opposed to cremated or buried. I also can’t imagine using the resulting compost in my garden, especially not to grow anything that I would eat. I think it might be nice to take the compost and use it to plant a tree in a loved one’s memory. I wonder if the compost material would contain DNA?  Personally, I plan to donate my organs or anything that might be useful to someone who can use it to live. I don’t particularly care what happens to what would remain of my body (though I wouldn’t like to be buried in a tomb), so this could be an option for me.
--Sarah Harrison

Soil Degradation due to Soil Salinization

    The world has been losing 2,000 hectares of farm soil every single day for about 20 years now due to soil salinization. The buildup of salt in the soil makes it harsher for crops to grow, decreasing yields and requiring more water. The areas affected are mostly in the Aral Sea Basin, the Indo-Gangetic Basin in India, Pakistan, the Yellow River Basin in China, Iraq, Australia, and California. It is estimated that an area the size of France (62 million hectares) is affected by soil salinization. The main way to get the salts out of the soil is by washing them with water, but even then the created salt water has to be removed, and the areas affected are in arid regions where water is scarce as it is. It is estimated that the world loses $27.3 billion per year in crop yield loss, not including the effects that the loss of food will have on the future of mankind. With the population trending towards doubling again by 2040, people will need more food to be able to handle the extra population, and it may not be available. 14% of the world’s land area is used in agriculture and there isn’t much left to replace what has been lost. A proposed solution is to irrigate plants in arid regions with brackish water or even seawater. While most land plants can’t handle using saltwater, some researchers are trying to introduce saltwater tolerant crops into humans’ diets, specifically halophytes, which with genetic engineering, can be used to supplement the world’s growing need for food while helping humanity be able to utilize the land lost to soil salinization.
--Colin McGill

New Jersey Fights Exxon Settlement

    For this current event I found two articles from the New York Times both about the current legal issues between Exxon and the State of New Jersey.  The main issue is that Exxon had two plants in New Jersey that were putting out a large amount of pollution over an extended period of time.  The state did an assessment on the damages caused by Exxon and determined that there was $8.9 billion in damages.  Over the last few years legal battles happened in court over how much damage there really was and if Exxon was liable for the damages but before a verdict was reached both sides opted to resolve the issue outside of court.  The settlement that was released was that Exxon would pay $225 million in damages and that there would be no formal actions taken against them besides the fine and that they would not be considered at fault for the damages to the environment.  Currently the settlement will sit for 60 days and the public is allowed to voice their opinions and then this settlement will go in front of a judge who will ultimately decide if it is fair.  Right now there is a lot of outrage in the public and even the New Jersey State Senate voted 24 to 0 to urge the judge to reject this settlement.
    I believe that in this situation it is important for New Jersey to stand up against Exxon and to try and get as much money as possible from them. $225 million is not even close to the amount owed to the state so why settle for so little?  I also believe that the Government needs to start caring about the environment more and this could set a national precedent; if a major company pollutes and causes great harm to the environment they must be held responsible.  Unfortunately it seems that Chris Christie seems to be for this settlement because he can use the money to fill holes in New Jersey's general budget.  I think that the state should fight as hard as they can and if necessary appeal the decision to a higher court.  Some ways to fight this in the future would be to have general inspections and yearly reports by companies to monitor pollution and impact on the area to catch issues like this early.  I also think that the government should label these companies as harmful to the environment and that could help stop other states from letting them operate in their state.
--Ian O'Brien

Chesapeake Bay's blue crab population rebounding

    Chesapeake Bay's blue crab population rebounding discusses the challenges the Chesapeake Bay’s Blue Crab population faces. According to the article the number of spawning females dropped fifty three percent from the previous year. The estimated population of spawning female Blue Crabs is around seventy million. The author describes this as an alarming number because for a healthy Blue Crab population experts believe the number should be two hundred fifteen million. Dietrich believes that the population numbers are not down due to over harvesting the species. Dietrich says that experts attribute the decline to a combination of environmental factors. Karen Graham author of Where oh where are the Chesapeake Bay's blue crabs going? believes that the declining population is due to new migration patterns, environmental factors, and over-exploitation. Graham states that back in early 1980’s fisherman focused their efforts on Blue Crabs because the Oyster population took a major hit due to fresh water flooding. This caused the Blue Crab population to decline to three hundred million which is half of the natural population.
    I thoroughly enjoyed reading both of these articles and found that they gave great insight into the declining Blue Crab population. However, I do not agree with Tamara Dietrich’s belief that the decline is simply from environmental factors. Every summer Blue Crab demand increases and fisherman and restaurants stress the meet the demand due to the profits that can be made. I tend to agree more with Karen Grahams theory that the population decline is due to a combination of environmental factors and over harvesting of the species. I believe in order to have a healthy population we must mandate a cease of harvesting for an extended period of time.

--Brandon Replogle

EPA's authority to regulate in question

    The Case of Michigan vs. EPA will surely be a landmark case for the environmental movement in the United States. Michigan, representing about 20 other states, is suing the EPA for what they claim is over-stepping the EPA’s authority to regulate a state’s emissions. Under the Clean Air Act the EPA is allowed to set standards for pollutants that a state is allowed to produce. The process of how the States do that is usually up to the states however. The Obama administration is attempting to change that by demanding regulations on coal burning power plants to regulate mercury, arsenic and various other pollutants. This new policy of regulating mercury and arsenic will cost the U.S about $9.6 billion annually for what the opponents of this new rule will only produce about $6 million in direct benefits. The proponents of the bill have very different figures saying that the co-benefits from prevention of 11,000 premature deaths, 4700 nonfatal heart attacks, and 540,000 lost days of work annually will save the country anywhere from $37 billion to $90 billion.
    [Although the benefits clearly exceed the costs, these states are saying that the EPA did not do the cost-benefit analysis at the right time: it should have been done sooner.--JM]
    In my personal opinion I am heavily in favor of this new rule. I think that the benefits from this rule far outweigh the cost of putting air quality regulation in certain power plants. The fact that Michigan and these other states are trying to win this case on a technicality of the EPA's not factoring in the cost to the states at the appropriate stage is a move of desperation in my opinion. However I see that Michigan does have a point with the costs not being assessed at the right stage and while I don’t think it will stop the bill from eventually being put into action I could see it possibly delaying the implementation of the new rule.

--Derek Pittman

Men- Eat Your Junk Food!

    I reviewed two online articles which discussed sperm quality in relation to exposure to pesticides. The first article from The Guardian titled, “Pesticide residue on food could affect sperm quality", discussed the results of a Harvard study, which showed that consumption of fruits and vegetables with residue from pesticides decreases and affects the quality of sperm. One of the identifiable limitations of the research was that the study subject was men who attend fertility clinics and not a wider cross section of the public such as the general population.
    The second article from “Our Stolen Future” discusses the same topic, however the source of pesticide that was studied was from drinking water. The study was carried out in Missouri. The study purposely choose men who had a pregnant partner. This was used as an indicator of potency. The study tested men from rural parts of Missouri compared to urban areas in Minneapolis and the result showed that the men were affected by different chemical pesticides. The two articles addressed the issue of pesticides' affecting sperm level and quality from either fruit and vegetable or drinking water.
    These articles were interesting because in society today children and adults are being educated and advised to consume more healthy food to include fruits and vegetable, however it appears that this may be having a negative on men’s health. The pesticides used on fruits and vegetables protect the produce from the dangers from weeds, insects and plant diseases. This raises whether men, who attempt to have a healthier lifestyle with a focus on fruits and vegetables as part of their diets are actually unwittingly negatively affecting the health of their sperm, a problem that their junk-food eating counterparts do not experience?

--Nyala Clyne