Jose Corona
Environmental Studies
Warner Pacific College
June 10, 2011
Government regulations pertaining to the environment can sometimes be more than just a few laws that are handed down. These laws that are meant to do the right thing, but are causing a lot of turmoil to the businesses and land owners that are involved. The majority of people in the United States want more regulations, but are not are not fully aware of all the implications that are involved. There is a lot of disagreement with the government over regulations that perhaps the government was not aware of, in terms of how businesses are being affected. Much dispute comes out of these regulations that are handed down to the public. There is two sides, on one hand you have the government enforcing these laws because it is much needed to help and save our environment and on the hand you have these businesses and land owners that are furious with the government over these rulings that have caused them much grief. With pollution, economic downturn, and global warming on the arise, one thing is for sure something needs to be done, whether businesses give in to the governments demands or the government becomes more lenient towards these businesses.
Let’s start with land owners, the Fifth Amendment states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, which the courts have interpreted this clause as the” taking clause”. This bans the government from taking away your private property and it also ensure you from regulatory taking. Regulatory taking is when a government law deprives a property owner of all or some economic use of his or her property (Withgott, Bennan, 2010). This amendment is brought up when zoning comes to the forefront of a region; zoning involves government restrictions on the use of private land and represents a top-down constrain on personal property rights. Zoning is meant to keep certain businesses from entering specific neighborhoods, zoning also gives home buyers and business owners security because they know in advance what types of development can developed in that particular area. Zoning from the governments’ perception sounds like a high-quality decision. Now let us take a look at zoning from a landowners perception, the landowner might see this as a violation to his or hers right to the Fifth Amendment. The land owner might want to make good use of his or her land space, but if regulations are imposed and prohibits the land owner from maximizing the use of the land, then this is entitles the owner his or her day in court. This is exactly what happened to a South Carolina man named Lucas. Lucas a land developer who purchased beach property in 1986 for $975,000 was a prime example of how zoning affected his development. In 1988, before Lucas began developing on the beach front, a law was passed that banned constructions on eroding beaches. The land that Lucas owned was declared as an eroding beach and prohibited residential construction. Lucas believing that this constituted as a regulatory taking, filed and asked the lower courts to compensate him because his Fifth Amendment had been violated. The lower court ruled sided with Lucas and compensated him with $1.2 million dollars, but the case was overruled by the state supreme court. Lucas was forced to take his case all the way to U.S Supreme court, which eventually ruled in favor with Lucas (Withgott, Bennan, 2010). This was a prime example how government regulations are not always clear and concise according to land owners.
Cases like the Lucas vs. South Carolina Coastal Council have left many people wondering if government knows what’s best for our communities. “Many citizens and policy experts began to feel that the legislative and regulatory means used to achieve environmental policy goals too often imposed economic burdens on businesses and personal burdens on individuals” (Withgott, Bennan, 2010, p. 178). Pressure from businesses and citizens pushed back the efforts of government regulations, such as the years that Ronald Regan and George Bush were presidents, these administrations weakened environmental laws for years that followed.
Although businesses seemed to be fighting back against government regulations and with the help of certain political administrations behind them, things began to change. The change came when Barack Obama became president, along with the enhanced Democratic majorities in Congress; a new wave of policies hit the nation as a whole. Policies that was not only effective to our environment but also our society at large. The policies that I am referring to are The Recovery Act and Reinvestment Act. The Recovery Act and Reinvestment Act is an act that includes more than $80 billion dollars in the generation of renewable energy sources, expanding manufacturing capacity for clean energy technology, advancing vehicle and fuel technologies, and building a bigger, better, smarter electric grid, all while creating new, sustainable jobs. The Recovery Act was responsible for 2 million jobs or even more nationwide in the first year alone. The Recovery Act has laid the groundwork for a new clean energy economy, revitalized infrastructure and transportation, and it has helped transform health information technology to stay competitive for years to come (Whitehouse.Gov). These policies enable the government to help the environment, communities, businesses, as well as individuals. Looking at it from this standpoint, it appears that the government knows what they are doing, because they are taking care of all the critical issues of today’s topics.
Issues like these are just a small example why people favor or are against governmental regulations. Favoritism really depends on subjective experience, it depends who is being affected by the policy and whether it can be used beneficially to the people involved. My personal view on government regulation is that it is not a self solving issue, it will take years and efforts by all of us that are involved, and I think in the end pollution and global warming will not let us decide who is right. I think that it is going to get really bad and that government will have to oversee all our problems. In the end it will be the government that will decide what is more important, whether the business stays up or it comes down due to the harmful effects it may have toward the environment.
References
Withgott, J., & Bennan, S. (2010). Environment: The Science Behind the Stories (4th
Ed.). New York. Pearson Benjamin Cummings
http://www.whitehouse.gov/recovery Retrieved on June 12, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Safe Drinking Water Act by Janine Anderson
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Janine Anderson
Environmental Studies PHS 100A
David Terrell Ph. D.
Warner Pacific College
June 11, 2011
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the federal law that was written in 1974 to ensure Americans that their drinking water is safe to consume. It was then amended in 1986 and again in 1996 to require several actions to protect the resources: rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs and ground water wells. There are many threats to drinking water: improperly disposed chemicals, animal and human waste, pesticides, waste that are injected underground as well as naturally-occurring substances which can all contaminate our drinking water. (United States Envi-ronmental Protection Agency, 2011) How the water is treated and processed can all pose a health risk. There are so many facets to the SDWA, not only what is in our water, but maintaining the infrastructure, financing and what happens when our water is contaminated. Who cleans up the mess? Who pays for the clean up?
I think that the United States is doing a better job at keeping our drinking water safe then oth-er countries. We all know someone that has gone to another country and ended up sick from the water. It is a known fact that when you travel over seas that you should not drink the water and brush your teeth with the tap water to avoid getting sick. However, even though the United States has a much better system for keeping water safe, it is still an ongoing problem. There are some areas of our country that have major problems. For example, in Charleston West Virginia their water has been completely contaminated from the coalmines, to the point that people are getting brain tumors and are dying. Even the children cannot even play in the bathtub because they get severe rashes and the water burns their skin. I do not understand how this kind of thing is happening with all of the regulations and laws for dumping waste.
Here in Portland Oregon I am still amazed how many times you here on the news that there was an accidental spill of raw sewage or chemicals in the Willamette River. It is then broadcast that for a few days you are not supposed to swim in the river. No one cleans up the mess; they just wait until it floats down stream and becomes more diluted. More needs to be done to keep these types of incidents from happening. This also affects the fish in the rivers that we eat.
I believe every person has a role in keeping our water clean and safe, not only for drinking, but for swimming or bathing our children. We need to be cautious about not polluting the water or using chemicals on the ground that can seep into the water tables. Storms also can be detri-ment to our waterways because of flooding. Being prepared for what to do after a storm incase your drinking water is compromised. Using water efficiently is also important; it helps to reduce the demand on our water supplies. When it comes down to it, we all just need to be involved in keeping our water safe. Get involved in your local government and do your part.
References
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Initials. (2011, May 16). Safe drinking water act (SDWA). Retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/index.cfm
Janine Anderson
Environmental Studies PHS 100A
David Terrell Ph. D.
Warner Pacific College
June 11, 2011
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the federal law that was written in 1974 to ensure Americans that their drinking water is safe to consume. It was then amended in 1986 and again in 1996 to require several actions to protect the resources: rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs and ground water wells. There are many threats to drinking water: improperly disposed chemicals, animal and human waste, pesticides, waste that are injected underground as well as naturally-occurring substances which can all contaminate our drinking water. (United States Envi-ronmental Protection Agency, 2011) How the water is treated and processed can all pose a health risk. There are so many facets to the SDWA, not only what is in our water, but maintaining the infrastructure, financing and what happens when our water is contaminated. Who cleans up the mess? Who pays for the clean up?
I think that the United States is doing a better job at keeping our drinking water safe then oth-er countries. We all know someone that has gone to another country and ended up sick from the water. It is a known fact that when you travel over seas that you should not drink the water and brush your teeth with the tap water to avoid getting sick. However, even though the United States has a much better system for keeping water safe, it is still an ongoing problem. There are some areas of our country that have major problems. For example, in Charleston West Virginia their water has been completely contaminated from the coalmines, to the point that people are getting brain tumors and are dying. Even the children cannot even play in the bathtub because they get severe rashes and the water burns their skin. I do not understand how this kind of thing is happening with all of the regulations and laws for dumping waste.
Here in Portland Oregon I am still amazed how many times you here on the news that there was an accidental spill of raw sewage or chemicals in the Willamette River. It is then broadcast that for a few days you are not supposed to swim in the river. No one cleans up the mess; they just wait until it floats down stream and becomes more diluted. More needs to be done to keep these types of incidents from happening. This also affects the fish in the rivers that we eat.
I believe every person has a role in keeping our water clean and safe, not only for drinking, but for swimming or bathing our children. We need to be cautious about not polluting the water or using chemicals on the ground that can seep into the water tables. Storms also can be detri-ment to our waterways because of flooding. Being prepared for what to do after a storm incase your drinking water is compromised. Using water efficiently is also important; it helps to reduce the demand on our water supplies. When it comes down to it, we all just need to be involved in keeping our water safe. Get involved in your local government and do your part.
References
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Initials. (2011, May 16). Safe drinking water act (SDWA). Retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/index.cfm
Friday, June 10, 2011
Pros and Cons of Population Control Regulation by Floyd Willis
The Pros and Cons of Population Control
Floyd Wills
Environmental Studies
PHS 100A
Professor David Terrell
Warner Pacific College
June 9, 2011
“The hungry world cannot be fed until and unless the growth of its resources and the growth of its population come into balance. Each man and woman- and each nation- must make a decision of conscience and policy in the face of this great problem.” –Lyndon B. Johnson
For the past several thousand years the world population has grown at an incredibly fast rate. A recent estimate on the About.com Geography website (2011), puts the current total to around 6,852,472, 823. When I was born in 1971, the total world population was around 3.7 billion people. Since that time, the population has almost doubled!
If we look beyond the falsities of the neoclassical economic views of our planet, we can see that we live in a world that does not have an infinite amount of resources for us to haphazardly exploit. With our population increasing at a dizzying rate, what if anything can we do to achieve the balance that Lyndon Johnson spoke about? Some believe the answer to this question is population control. In this essay, I will explore the pros and cons of population control and hopefully provide a balanced view on the subject. Before I begin, let me define the term “Population Control.” According to TheFreeDictionary.com, it is defined as: A government program to limit or slow population growth, as by birth control education, the wide availability of contraceptives, and economic incentives.
The issue of population control is not new. A number of ancient philosophers and writers shed light on this issue before the birth of Christ. In about 300 BC an Indian philosopher named Kautilya, considered population as a source of political, economic, and military strength. In ancient Greece, Plato and Aristotle believed the best population size for Greek city states should be small enough to provide efficient administration, but large enough to defend themselves against their enemies.
In the 1960’s and 70’s there was a large population control movement taking place. Paul R. Ehrlich, a US biologist and environmentalist, published the book, “The Population Bomb,” in 1968, advocating population control policies.
Advocates of population control site some of these benefits:
• In the online article by Katherine Mieszkowski, “Do we need population control?”(2008), Paul Ehrlich says that controlling population will help keep more children alive once they are born. According to The World Food Bank, there are around 1.4 billion people living on less than $1.25 a day. Many millions of children die of malnutrition.
• Birth control education and the availability of contraceptives can help control population. According to The CDC website, half of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned.
• In the article by Niki Fears titled, “New study suggests benefits of population control to reduce carbon emissions,” a recent study released from the London school of economics suggests that population control could help reduce the effects of carbon emission.
• Overpopulation has been blamed for a variety of issues such as: increased poverty, environmental depletion, high unemployment, famine, and even genocide.
Those in opposition of population control point out these cons:
• In his book, “Population Control,” Steven Mosher, opposes it based on the belief that each person has a unique value, more people mean more for all of us- more economic production, more potential for creative and scientific achievement.
• In The Washington Times article, “Taking on the overpopulation myth,” (2008), Steven Mosher talks about how population control could lead to human rights abuses by governments eager to meet their population reduction goals. In China for example, unauthorized births are punished by fines. There have even been allegations of illegal forced abortions and sterilizations.
• According to Ehrlich as quoted in Mieszkowki’s (2008) article, reducing the size of the population does not address the subject of consumerism. “If we cut the population in half over the next 50 years by any means, and we double each person’s consumption, we are exactly back to where we are now”. (p.1)
Both the supporters and opponents of the population control issue have some valid points. I believe our answer does not lie on one side or the other, but more likely somewhere in the middle. Learning to develop alternative sources of energy, educating people on how to live a “greener life,” preserving specific areas of wildlife, and providing education on contraceptives is a starting point. Our creator made us stewards over this planet, and it is our responsibility to take good care of it. We owe it to our children and the future generations.
“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect. –Chief Seattle, 1854.
References
Fears, N. New study suggests benefits of population control to reduce carbon emissions. Retrieved June 7, 2011 from http://www.examiner.com/environmental-news-in-national/new-study-
Mieszkowski, K. (2008). Do we need population control?
Retrieved June 7, 2011 from http://www.salon.com/news/environment/feature/2008/09/17populati
Mosher, S. (2008).Taking on the overpopulation myth
Retrieved June 7, 2011 from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/27/taking-on-the-ove
Rosenberg, M. (2011). Current World Population
Retrieved June 8, 2011 from http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm
Floyd Wills
Environmental Studies
PHS 100A
Professor David Terrell
Warner Pacific College
June 9, 2011
“The hungry world cannot be fed until and unless the growth of its resources and the growth of its population come into balance. Each man and woman- and each nation- must make a decision of conscience and policy in the face of this great problem.” –Lyndon B. Johnson
For the past several thousand years the world population has grown at an incredibly fast rate. A recent estimate on the About.com Geography website (2011), puts the current total to around 6,852,472, 823. When I was born in 1971, the total world population was around 3.7 billion people. Since that time, the population has almost doubled!
If we look beyond the falsities of the neoclassical economic views of our planet, we can see that we live in a world that does not have an infinite amount of resources for us to haphazardly exploit. With our population increasing at a dizzying rate, what if anything can we do to achieve the balance that Lyndon Johnson spoke about? Some believe the answer to this question is population control. In this essay, I will explore the pros and cons of population control and hopefully provide a balanced view on the subject. Before I begin, let me define the term “Population Control.” According to TheFreeDictionary.com, it is defined as: A government program to limit or slow population growth, as by birth control education, the wide availability of contraceptives, and economic incentives.
The issue of population control is not new. A number of ancient philosophers and writers shed light on this issue before the birth of Christ. In about 300 BC an Indian philosopher named Kautilya, considered population as a source of political, economic, and military strength. In ancient Greece, Plato and Aristotle believed the best population size for Greek city states should be small enough to provide efficient administration, but large enough to defend themselves against their enemies.
In the 1960’s and 70’s there was a large population control movement taking place. Paul R. Ehrlich, a US biologist and environmentalist, published the book, “The Population Bomb,” in 1968, advocating population control policies.
Advocates of population control site some of these benefits:
• In the online article by Katherine Mieszkowski, “Do we need population control?”(2008), Paul Ehrlich says that controlling population will help keep more children alive once they are born. According to The World Food Bank, there are around 1.4 billion people living on less than $1.25 a day. Many millions of children die of malnutrition.
• Birth control education and the availability of contraceptives can help control population. According to The CDC website, half of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned.
• In the article by Niki Fears titled, “New study suggests benefits of population control to reduce carbon emissions,” a recent study released from the London school of economics suggests that population control could help reduce the effects of carbon emission.
• Overpopulation has been blamed for a variety of issues such as: increased poverty, environmental depletion, high unemployment, famine, and even genocide.
Those in opposition of population control point out these cons:
• In his book, “Population Control,” Steven Mosher, opposes it based on the belief that each person has a unique value, more people mean more for all of us- more economic production, more potential for creative and scientific achievement.
• In The Washington Times article, “Taking on the overpopulation myth,” (2008), Steven Mosher talks about how population control could lead to human rights abuses by governments eager to meet their population reduction goals. In China for example, unauthorized births are punished by fines. There have even been allegations of illegal forced abortions and sterilizations.
• According to Ehrlich as quoted in Mieszkowki’s (2008) article, reducing the size of the population does not address the subject of consumerism. “If we cut the population in half over the next 50 years by any means, and we double each person’s consumption, we are exactly back to where we are now”. (p.1)
Both the supporters and opponents of the population control issue have some valid points. I believe our answer does not lie on one side or the other, but more likely somewhere in the middle. Learning to develop alternative sources of energy, educating people on how to live a “greener life,” preserving specific areas of wildlife, and providing education on contraceptives is a starting point. Our creator made us stewards over this planet, and it is our responsibility to take good care of it. We owe it to our children and the future generations.
“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect. –Chief Seattle, 1854.
References
Fears, N. New study suggests benefits of population control to reduce carbon emissions. Retrieved June 7, 2011 from http://www.examiner.com/environmental-news-in-national/new-study-
Mieszkowski, K. (2008). Do we need population control?
Retrieved June 7, 2011 from http://www.salon.com/news/environment/feature/2008/09/17populati
Mosher, S. (2008).Taking on the overpopulation myth
Retrieved June 7, 2011 from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/27/taking-on-the-ove
Rosenberg, M. (2011). Current World Population
Retrieved June 8, 2011 from http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm
Assessing Natural Resources and Environmental Regulations by Leanne Clark
Assessing Natural Resources and
The Impact of Environmental Regulations
Leanne Clark
EN120A
Dr. David Terrell
Warner Pacific College
June 9, 2011
As a society, the depletion of our natural resources and pollution of our environment has become an issue of great concern in the past few decades, more than ever before. From the kitchen table to government committees, we are paying closer attention to how we can take care of the earth and our lives through prudent use of our natural resources.
Effective assessment of our natural resources is the cornerstone of forming any movement to protect them. Natural Resources, as defined by the United States Geological Survey, are “water, minerals, coal, oil, gas, living things, and the land itself” (Assessing Our Natural Resources, 2005).
Through the years, technology has made great strides in our ability to observe and measure our natural resources, both their depletion and how effective programs are in preserving them. Technology such as the Geographic Information System provides an invaluable tool with which scientist can map, track and predict the depletion and restoration of our natural resources.
However, some assessments are still done in the most rudimentary fashion. For the purpose of this paper let us examine the counting of salmon, and other fish in the salmon family, along the rivers in our region. The decline and restoration of our salmon population has been a long standing environmental concern and effective assessment of this population is key. This assessment however, at its origin, is not done by computers, but rather by human hand.
At 8 dams located throughout the region (Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, McNary,
Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite), fish ladders are present. As the fish move through these ladders a single person, located in a viewing room, counts the types of salmon family fish which come through each day (Building Strong, 2011)
From this data, the US Army Corps of Engineers then uses mathematical formulas, and of course computers to track our salmon population. This also allows us, as a society, to assess the effectiveness of current programs to preserve the salmon and what additional steps may need to be taken.
Looking at another area of environmental concern, let us examine the question of how environmental regulations impact our cultural and lifestyles. To do so, it would be wise to start with the work done through the US government’s Environmental Protection Agency.
The Environmental Protection Agency provides environmental regulations on a federal level. It is fair to say that on a large scale, these regulations improve the quality of our lives. By providing laws which hold industry and agriculture accountable for their impact on our most crucial environmental areas, air and water, the EPA has consistently made our country a better place to live.
As an example let us examine The Clean Air Act, which started as The Air Pollution Control Act of 1955. This first version established funds for the United States government to research air pollution. In 1963 The Clean Air Act was established as our government’s first voyage into air pollution control. In 1967 the Air Quality Act was enacted to expand federal activities in this area.
The original Clean Air Act has received many amendments over the years. These amendments, as well as the base act, have established standards and practices in our country to monitor pollutant heavy industry and consumer use. A great example is the requirements for control of motor vehicle emissions in the 1970 act. In the 1990 amendments, a program was established to phase out the use of chemicals that deplete the ozone layer. (History of the Clean Air Act, 2010).
Of course, these regulation do cost consumers more in the way of taxes, fees and end product consumer prices, in my opinion, having cleaner air to breath is invaluable.
It is clear that as a society, the protection of our natural resources is crucial. This protection begins at the basic level of assessment, or understanding of what we have and where the problem areas exist. From this data, our country, and hopefully all world governments, can work to regulate and manage our resources in an effective manner.
References
Assessing Our Natural Resources. (2005, July 20). Retrieved June 7, 2011, from USGS science for a
changing world: http://www.usgs.gov/themes/factsheet/094-99/index.html
Building Strong. (2011, June 6). Retrieved June 6, 2011, from US Army Corps of Engineers:
http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/environment/fishdata.asp
History of the Clean Air Act. (2010, November 16). Retrieved June 6, 2011, from U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency: www.//www.epa.gov/air/caa/caa_history.html
The Impact of Environmental Regulations
Leanne Clark
EN120A
Dr. David Terrell
Warner Pacific College
June 9, 2011
As a society, the depletion of our natural resources and pollution of our environment has become an issue of great concern in the past few decades, more than ever before. From the kitchen table to government committees, we are paying closer attention to how we can take care of the earth and our lives through prudent use of our natural resources.
Effective assessment of our natural resources is the cornerstone of forming any movement to protect them. Natural Resources, as defined by the United States Geological Survey, are “water, minerals, coal, oil, gas, living things, and the land itself” (Assessing Our Natural Resources, 2005).
Through the years, technology has made great strides in our ability to observe and measure our natural resources, both their depletion and how effective programs are in preserving them. Technology such as the Geographic Information System provides an invaluable tool with which scientist can map, track and predict the depletion and restoration of our natural resources.
However, some assessments are still done in the most rudimentary fashion. For the purpose of this paper let us examine the counting of salmon, and other fish in the salmon family, along the rivers in our region. The decline and restoration of our salmon population has been a long standing environmental concern and effective assessment of this population is key. This assessment however, at its origin, is not done by computers, but rather by human hand.
At 8 dams located throughout the region (Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, McNary,
Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite), fish ladders are present. As the fish move through these ladders a single person, located in a viewing room, counts the types of salmon family fish which come through each day (Building Strong, 2011)
From this data, the US Army Corps of Engineers then uses mathematical formulas, and of course computers to track our salmon population. This also allows us, as a society, to assess the effectiveness of current programs to preserve the salmon and what additional steps may need to be taken.
Looking at another area of environmental concern, let us examine the question of how environmental regulations impact our cultural and lifestyles. To do so, it would be wise to start with the work done through the US government’s Environmental Protection Agency.
The Environmental Protection Agency provides environmental regulations on a federal level. It is fair to say that on a large scale, these regulations improve the quality of our lives. By providing laws which hold industry and agriculture accountable for their impact on our most crucial environmental areas, air and water, the EPA has consistently made our country a better place to live.
As an example let us examine The Clean Air Act, which started as The Air Pollution Control Act of 1955. This first version established funds for the United States government to research air pollution. In 1963 The Clean Air Act was established as our government’s first voyage into air pollution control. In 1967 the Air Quality Act was enacted to expand federal activities in this area.
The original Clean Air Act has received many amendments over the years. These amendments, as well as the base act, have established standards and practices in our country to monitor pollutant heavy industry and consumer use. A great example is the requirements for control of motor vehicle emissions in the 1970 act. In the 1990 amendments, a program was established to phase out the use of chemicals that deplete the ozone layer. (History of the Clean Air Act, 2010).
Of course, these regulation do cost consumers more in the way of taxes, fees and end product consumer prices, in my opinion, having cleaner air to breath is invaluable.
It is clear that as a society, the protection of our natural resources is crucial. This protection begins at the basic level of assessment, or understanding of what we have and where the problem areas exist. From this data, our country, and hopefully all world governments, can work to regulate and manage our resources in an effective manner.
References
Assessing Our Natural Resources. (2005, July 20). Retrieved June 7, 2011, from USGS science for a
changing world: http://www.usgs.gov/themes/factsheet/094-99/index.html
Building Strong. (2011, June 6). Retrieved June 6, 2011, from US Army Corps of Engineers:
http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/environment/fishdata.asp
History of the Clean Air Act. (2010, November 16). Retrieved June 6, 2011, from U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency: www.//www.epa.gov/air/caa/caa_history.html
Paper or Plastic? by Angela Avey
Paper or Plastic? Assessing our resources and changing our culture.
Angela Avey
PHS 100A
Dr. David Terrell
Warner Pacific College
June 9, 2011
Paper or Plastic? Assessing our resources and changing our culture.
The ability to assess our natural resources is necessary for many reasons. First and foremost, the assessment can tell us how quickly we are using, damaging or producing God’s gift of priceless natural resources. The methods which can be used to measure our resources come in many different forms. After the disastrous oil spill last year in the Gulf of Mexico, dollar amounts were used to assess the damage that had been done to the immediate ecosystem and the resulting necessary cleanup efforts. But many times, as demonstrated in our first workshop, we use measurements to assess just how clean our air and water is, or how fertile the soil or dense the grow trees in the forest. Knowing how much we can use and how much we have left will enable us to take steps towards keeping our consumption of resources at a renewable level.
In researching my topic for this paper, I was overwhelmed by the amount of trees and oil we use each year to produce paper and plastic bags for use in the United States alone. I imagine the world total would be staggering. In the U.S., 14 million trees and 12 million barrels of oil are used to create bags. That is the figure for raw materials only and there are many more hazardous and unnatural components which are necessary to turn the raw materials in usable products. For instance, to create paper bags, trees must be harvested, and then moved by logging trucks or helicopters to a production factory. The trees must then be dried for up to three years in order to have the correct moisture level for manufacturing. Once they are dry, they must then be shaved of bark, chopped into pieces and mulched. This requires the use of heavy machinery which in turn uses precious fossil fuels and electricity. Sulfurous acid and limestone is then added to the mulch and the mixture is essentially cooked to the proper consistency. Bleach is another chemical which is used in the production of paper. As you can see, the result is something that we use each and every day, but at what cost?
It’s true, plastic bags take less electricity to produce than paper bags, but they are far worse for the environment once made. Not a day goes by that one cannot find a discarded plastic bag caught in a tree or wadded into a ball in a gutter. In some areas of the world, paper bags wash up on beaches like driftwood and countless numbers of marine life are killed by becoming entangled in or consuming the plastic. It’s clear that something must be done to lessen the use of these items.
Regulations for banning the use of plastic bags are not a new idea. In 2007, San Francisco became the first major U.S. city to ban their use. Oregon is also mulling over a possible statewide ban as well, which I support. In fact, most people I know support the ban, but surprisingly there are many folks who do not support it. I know of an elderly neighbor who was furious that the bags were eliminated from our neighborhood Fred Meyer store because she walks the 12 blocks from our street to the store and back and it is difficult for her to balance heavy groceries in a paper bag while walking the distance home. I can understand this (and in fact, purchased 4 new reusable bags for her as a gift), but she is not alone in her unhappiness. The largest proponent of the ban is led by the plastic bag manufacturers, such as Hilex Poly. They have led vigorous campaigns against the state of Oregon in its attempt to bring the issue to legislators. The debate is sure to rage on as time passes and the inevitable questions are asked.
In all, it is our jobs as consumers and inhabitants of this great planet to make the right decision for our environment. This is not easy for all, but our culture must change from a nation of convenience to that of a sustainable and thoughtful society. It may not be the most convenient thing to carry your cloth bags to the store with you, but what it will do for our world will be measured in the air we breathe, the oceans we swim in and the forests we hike.
References
Cernansky, R. (2010, Aug. 17). How many cities have a ban on plastic bags? PlanetGreen.com Retrieved from http://planetgreen.discovery.com/work-connect/how-many-cities-have-a-ban-on-plastic-bags.html?print=true
Har, J. (2011, June 1). Oregon bill to ban plastic bags may live; situation is ‘fluid’. The Oregonian
Pirraglian, W. (2009, March 12). Paper vs. plastic – which is better? Eco-wisdom.com Retrieved from http://www.eco-wisdom.com/articles/lifestyle/paper-vs-plastic-which-is-better_printer.html
Thompson, A. (2007, May 7). Paper or plastic – what’s the greener choice? Msnbc.com Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18538484/ns/nightly_news/t/paper-or-plastic-whats-greener-choice/
Angela Avey
PHS 100A
Dr. David Terrell
Warner Pacific College
June 9, 2011
Paper or Plastic? Assessing our resources and changing our culture.
The ability to assess our natural resources is necessary for many reasons. First and foremost, the assessment can tell us how quickly we are using, damaging or producing God’s gift of priceless natural resources. The methods which can be used to measure our resources come in many different forms. After the disastrous oil spill last year in the Gulf of Mexico, dollar amounts were used to assess the damage that had been done to the immediate ecosystem and the resulting necessary cleanup efforts. But many times, as demonstrated in our first workshop, we use measurements to assess just how clean our air and water is, or how fertile the soil or dense the grow trees in the forest. Knowing how much we can use and how much we have left will enable us to take steps towards keeping our consumption of resources at a renewable level.
In researching my topic for this paper, I was overwhelmed by the amount of trees and oil we use each year to produce paper and plastic bags for use in the United States alone. I imagine the world total would be staggering. In the U.S., 14 million trees and 12 million barrels of oil are used to create bags. That is the figure for raw materials only and there are many more hazardous and unnatural components which are necessary to turn the raw materials in usable products. For instance, to create paper bags, trees must be harvested, and then moved by logging trucks or helicopters to a production factory. The trees must then be dried for up to three years in order to have the correct moisture level for manufacturing. Once they are dry, they must then be shaved of bark, chopped into pieces and mulched. This requires the use of heavy machinery which in turn uses precious fossil fuels and electricity. Sulfurous acid and limestone is then added to the mulch and the mixture is essentially cooked to the proper consistency. Bleach is another chemical which is used in the production of paper. As you can see, the result is something that we use each and every day, but at what cost?
It’s true, plastic bags take less electricity to produce than paper bags, but they are far worse for the environment once made. Not a day goes by that one cannot find a discarded plastic bag caught in a tree or wadded into a ball in a gutter. In some areas of the world, paper bags wash up on beaches like driftwood and countless numbers of marine life are killed by becoming entangled in or consuming the plastic. It’s clear that something must be done to lessen the use of these items.
Regulations for banning the use of plastic bags are not a new idea. In 2007, San Francisco became the first major U.S. city to ban their use. Oregon is also mulling over a possible statewide ban as well, which I support. In fact, most people I know support the ban, but surprisingly there are many folks who do not support it. I know of an elderly neighbor who was furious that the bags were eliminated from our neighborhood Fred Meyer store because she walks the 12 blocks from our street to the store and back and it is difficult for her to balance heavy groceries in a paper bag while walking the distance home. I can understand this (and in fact, purchased 4 new reusable bags for her as a gift), but she is not alone in her unhappiness. The largest proponent of the ban is led by the plastic bag manufacturers, such as Hilex Poly. They have led vigorous campaigns against the state of Oregon in its attempt to bring the issue to legislators. The debate is sure to rage on as time passes and the inevitable questions are asked.
In all, it is our jobs as consumers and inhabitants of this great planet to make the right decision for our environment. This is not easy for all, but our culture must change from a nation of convenience to that of a sustainable and thoughtful society. It may not be the most convenient thing to carry your cloth bags to the store with you, but what it will do for our world will be measured in the air we breathe, the oceans we swim in and the forests we hike.
References
Cernansky, R. (2010, Aug. 17). How many cities have a ban on plastic bags? PlanetGreen.com Retrieved from http://planetgreen.discovery.com/work-connect/how-many-cities-have-a-ban-on-plastic-bags.html?print=true
Har, J. (2011, June 1). Oregon bill to ban plastic bags may live; situation is ‘fluid’. The Oregonian
Pirraglian, W. (2009, March 12). Paper vs. plastic – which is better? Eco-wisdom.com Retrieved from http://www.eco-wisdom.com/articles/lifestyle/paper-vs-plastic-which-is-better_printer.html
Thompson, A. (2007, May 7). Paper or plastic – what’s the greener choice? Msnbc.com Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18538484/ns/nightly_news/t/paper-or-plastic-whats-greener-choice/
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Environmental Regulations and Hydraulic Fracturing by Alan Schill
Environmental Regulations and Hydraulic Fracturing
Alan Schill
PS 100A Environmental Studies
David Terrell
Warner Pacific College
June 7, 2011
Environmental Regulations and Hydraulic Fracturing:
In the case of Hydraulic Fracturing, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is one of the government agencies given the authority to monitor and regulate the waste disposal of flowback and the injection of fracturing chemicals and fluids used in the process. Although there are also state regulations on hydraulic fracturing and the production of fossil fuels, the federal government is the main authority (EPA, 2010).
The disposal of the flowback into United States surface waters is also regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program (Water: Hydraulic Fracturing, 2010). There are several statutes that can be leveraged to protect the quality of water; however, the EPA relies on the Safe Drinking Water Act as its central authority to regulate (EPA, 2010).
Hydraulic Fracturing, commonly referred to as fracking, is a proven technological advancement used by gas and oil companies to safely obtain natural gas and oil from deep shale formations below the Earth’s surface. This discovery may potentially reduce our reliance dramatically on foreign imports while greatly reducing our national carbon footprint (Chesapeake Energy, 2011).
The process of Hydraulic Fracturing creates fractures in formations underground that allow natural gas and oil to flow. The process uses high pressure, to pump water, sand, and other additives into the shale formations to cause fractures to be created. Typically, in modern Hydraulic Fracturing, the fluid used is 98% water and sand, with small amounts of special-purpose additives (Chesapeake Energy, 2011). This process forces the fractures to open which allows the natural gas and oil to be collected at the water’s surface.
Scientists have known for many years that natural gas and oil deposits were released from deep shale formations; however, until recently they have always thought we could not recover the deposits. Now, because of fracking, combined with sophisticated horizontal drilling, large amounts of natural gas and oil deposits are safely being produced from across the United States (Chesapeake Energy, 2011).
Fracking has become a key element of natural gas and oil development throughout the United States and the remainder of the world. The process has been used by the natural gas and oil industry since the 1940’s. According to one article the process of hydraulic fracturing is used in almost every natural gas wells that are drilled in the United States. The process of fracking, when properly conducted, is a highly engineered, controlled, sophisticated and safe procedure (Chesapeake Energy, 2011).
According to the textbook when comparing the costs of environmental regulations to the benefits, the benefits far outweigh the financial impact. One EPA study on clean air found the benefits to be 6-10 times greater than the cost of complying with the regulations. We as consumers saved in hospitalization cost reductions and emergency room visits, premature deaths, along with less sick days at work, all combined accounted for an estimated $118-177 billion in financial savings (Withgott & Brennan, 2010, p. 180).
Today’s environmental policy is focused on environmental sustainability and global warming, or climate change. In many of its studies the EPA consults scientists, specialists, and local officials to determine the best way and most cost effective way, to change or regulate environmental processes. The command-and-control policy used by the EPA is oftentimes criticized for making changes costly and ineffective. However, the policy mandates solutions to the problems; thus, it allows the private marketplace to compete, resulting in better solutions at a lower cost (Withgott & Brennan, 2010, p. 178). Their goal is to keep the air we breathe and the water we drink, along with other natural resources in harmony.
Many times, the studies conducted by the EPA determine the health benefits alone are a savings to us, not to mention we have a cleaner environment, fresh air and clean water. We all need to take responsibility for a cleaner environment. It is important that corporations are responsible with their carbon footprint and sustainability measures; nevertheless, it is important that all citizens do their part. Simple things like recycling and picking up trash are only a small part of what we can do on a more global scale to make an impact.
References
Chesapeake Energy (2011). Hydraulic fracturing: Fact sheet, Retrieved June 04, 2011, from
http://www.hydraulicfracturing.com.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2010). Regulation of hydraulic fracturing by
the Office of Water, Retrieved June 04, 2011, from http://water.epa.gov.
Withgott, J. & Brennan, S. (2010). Environment: The Science Behind the Stories (4th ed.).
New York. Pearson Benjamin Cummings. ISBN: 13: 978-0-321-71534—0.
Alan Schill
PS 100A Environmental Studies
David Terrell
Warner Pacific College
June 7, 2011
Environmental Regulations and Hydraulic Fracturing:
In the case of Hydraulic Fracturing, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is one of the government agencies given the authority to monitor and regulate the waste disposal of flowback and the injection of fracturing chemicals and fluids used in the process. Although there are also state regulations on hydraulic fracturing and the production of fossil fuels, the federal government is the main authority (EPA, 2010).
The disposal of the flowback into United States surface waters is also regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program (Water: Hydraulic Fracturing, 2010). There are several statutes that can be leveraged to protect the quality of water; however, the EPA relies on the Safe Drinking Water Act as its central authority to regulate (EPA, 2010).
Hydraulic Fracturing, commonly referred to as fracking, is a proven technological advancement used by gas and oil companies to safely obtain natural gas and oil from deep shale formations below the Earth’s surface. This discovery may potentially reduce our reliance dramatically on foreign imports while greatly reducing our national carbon footprint (Chesapeake Energy, 2011).
The process of Hydraulic Fracturing creates fractures in formations underground that allow natural gas and oil to flow. The process uses high pressure, to pump water, sand, and other additives into the shale formations to cause fractures to be created. Typically, in modern Hydraulic Fracturing, the fluid used is 98% water and sand, with small amounts of special-purpose additives (Chesapeake Energy, 2011). This process forces the fractures to open which allows the natural gas and oil to be collected at the water’s surface.
Scientists have known for many years that natural gas and oil deposits were released from deep shale formations; however, until recently they have always thought we could not recover the deposits. Now, because of fracking, combined with sophisticated horizontal drilling, large amounts of natural gas and oil deposits are safely being produced from across the United States (Chesapeake Energy, 2011).
Fracking has become a key element of natural gas and oil development throughout the United States and the remainder of the world. The process has been used by the natural gas and oil industry since the 1940’s. According to one article the process of hydraulic fracturing is used in almost every natural gas wells that are drilled in the United States. The process of fracking, when properly conducted, is a highly engineered, controlled, sophisticated and safe procedure (Chesapeake Energy, 2011).
According to the textbook when comparing the costs of environmental regulations to the benefits, the benefits far outweigh the financial impact. One EPA study on clean air found the benefits to be 6-10 times greater than the cost of complying with the regulations. We as consumers saved in hospitalization cost reductions and emergency room visits, premature deaths, along with less sick days at work, all combined accounted for an estimated $118-177 billion in financial savings (Withgott & Brennan, 2010, p. 180).
Today’s environmental policy is focused on environmental sustainability and global warming, or climate change. In many of its studies the EPA consults scientists, specialists, and local officials to determine the best way and most cost effective way, to change or regulate environmental processes. The command-and-control policy used by the EPA is oftentimes criticized for making changes costly and ineffective. However, the policy mandates solutions to the problems; thus, it allows the private marketplace to compete, resulting in better solutions at a lower cost (Withgott & Brennan, 2010, p. 178). Their goal is to keep the air we breathe and the water we drink, along with other natural resources in harmony.
Many times, the studies conducted by the EPA determine the health benefits alone are a savings to us, not to mention we have a cleaner environment, fresh air and clean water. We all need to take responsibility for a cleaner environment. It is important that corporations are responsible with their carbon footprint and sustainability measures; nevertheless, it is important that all citizens do their part. Simple things like recycling and picking up trash are only a small part of what we can do on a more global scale to make an impact.
References
Chesapeake Energy (2011). Hydraulic fracturing: Fact sheet, Retrieved June 04, 2011, from
http://www.hydraulicfracturing.com.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2010). Regulation of hydraulic fracturing by
the Office of Water, Retrieved June 04, 2011, from http://water.epa.gov.
Withgott, J. & Brennan, S. (2010). Environment: The Science Behind the Stories (4th ed.).
New York. Pearson Benjamin Cummings. ISBN: 13: 978-0-321-71534—0.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Connection between Scientific Method and Western Culture by Mellisa Conlon
Melissa Conlon
Environmental Science
Dr. T
Warner Pacific College
June 3, 2011
The scientific method is the technique in which we try to draw a theory based off of our observations and test its consistency. Within the scientific method we try to ascertain that, within reason, something we discover will have an exact or similar result.
The breakdown of the scientific method is as follows:
Firstly, our Observation of something within our environment prompts us to want to explain it. We the ask a question about our observation; when we apply this to an environmental scientist’s methodology, they would break down the questions, taking into account such things as what happens when a variable, “X” has some sort of action or change, do we always get “Y”? Or, as the example in the book presents, the curious nature of us as human beings leads us to want to answer the question, “WHY”.
We then make a hypothesis when we have established our variables. With hypotheses, there’s multiple different ways to test it. Manipulation of the environment can provide the strongest type of evidence. It can demonstrate causal relationships with changes in the variables. There are limitations to this version of testing, however as we cannot use it on a massive scale. For things on a larger scale, often researchers use natural experiments which will compare the dependent variables in natural occurrences and in these they try to find a correlation. The evidence can be weaker than causal link that is established with the manipulatation of the environment. As it states in the text book Environment, by Withgott and Brennan (2011); “Good correlative studies can make for strong science, and they preserve the real-world complexity that manipulative experiments often sacrifice” (p. 13). The hypotheses will be the statement we try to explain the observation we established as the question.
We will then make a prediction that can be un-equivocally tested. Do we truly always get “Y” when “X” increases? Testing our predictions is how we can develop a correlation with the initial questions and hypothesis we establish as the foundation of our research. If the outcome holds to what we hope to be our theory, or if it doesn’t, we are then evaluating our results. The obtained information from the research and testing will be recorded as our results.
A theory is developed upon testing the hypothesis repeatedly and when it is proven to predict the expectation consistently. Once the theory is established to hold up, we may then apply the results to our experiment. Theories, once applied, may also change over the course of time. Our accepted understanding of something may shift, in other words, the scientific paradigm view is abandoned for another.
Western Society, as a United States Citizen means to me the land and the carbon foot print we have left behind in our wake as a society. Our nation, the biggest in comparison to the rest of the world looks like it has the biggest carbon foot print when in actuality France is by far, much small and third on the scale of leading foot prints. So, I ask this question, what makes a country that is so much smaller than the United States of America, relatively larger on the scale of carbon foot prints then us with much more land? And, why do we have such a large foot print? Is this because of population, land size, growth of companies, landfills, or a combination of them all. What makes a country like Haiti, with the smallest carbon foot print so much less? Is it clean living, education, recycling? What makes this carbon foot print and how as a nation do we stop it?
Reference Page:
Withgott, J., & Brennan, S. (2011). ENVIRONMENT the science behind the stories (fourth Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pearson Benjamin Cummings.
Environmental Science
Dr. T
Warner Pacific College
June 3, 2011
The scientific method is the technique in which we try to draw a theory based off of our observations and test its consistency. Within the scientific method we try to ascertain that, within reason, something we discover will have an exact or similar result.
The breakdown of the scientific method is as follows:
Firstly, our Observation of something within our environment prompts us to want to explain it. We the ask a question about our observation; when we apply this to an environmental scientist’s methodology, they would break down the questions, taking into account such things as what happens when a variable, “X” has some sort of action or change, do we always get “Y”? Or, as the example in the book presents, the curious nature of us as human beings leads us to want to answer the question, “WHY”.
We then make a hypothesis when we have established our variables. With hypotheses, there’s multiple different ways to test it. Manipulation of the environment can provide the strongest type of evidence. It can demonstrate causal relationships with changes in the variables. There are limitations to this version of testing, however as we cannot use it on a massive scale. For things on a larger scale, often researchers use natural experiments which will compare the dependent variables in natural occurrences and in these they try to find a correlation. The evidence can be weaker than causal link that is established with the manipulatation of the environment. As it states in the text book Environment, by Withgott and Brennan (2011); “Good correlative studies can make for strong science, and they preserve the real-world complexity that manipulative experiments often sacrifice” (p. 13). The hypotheses will be the statement we try to explain the observation we established as the question.
We will then make a prediction that can be un-equivocally tested. Do we truly always get “Y” when “X” increases? Testing our predictions is how we can develop a correlation with the initial questions and hypothesis we establish as the foundation of our research. If the outcome holds to what we hope to be our theory, or if it doesn’t, we are then evaluating our results. The obtained information from the research and testing will be recorded as our results.
A theory is developed upon testing the hypothesis repeatedly and when it is proven to predict the expectation consistently. Once the theory is established to hold up, we may then apply the results to our experiment. Theories, once applied, may also change over the course of time. Our accepted understanding of something may shift, in other words, the scientific paradigm view is abandoned for another.
Western Society, as a United States Citizen means to me the land and the carbon foot print we have left behind in our wake as a society. Our nation, the biggest in comparison to the rest of the world looks like it has the biggest carbon foot print when in actuality France is by far, much small and third on the scale of leading foot prints. So, I ask this question, what makes a country that is so much smaller than the United States of America, relatively larger on the scale of carbon foot prints then us with much more land? And, why do we have such a large foot print? Is this because of population, land size, growth of companies, landfills, or a combination of them all. What makes a country like Haiti, with the smallest carbon foot print so much less? Is it clean living, education, recycling? What makes this carbon foot print and how as a nation do we stop it?
Reference Page:
Withgott, J., & Brennan, S. (2011). ENVIRONMENT the science behind the stories (fourth Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pearson Benjamin Cummings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)