Why Redevelop Brownfields?

brownfields2011.org

            Brownfields “are abandoned or underused properties where there may be environmental contamination. Redevelopment efforts are often hindered by the liability for the cleanup or the uncertainty of cleanup costs” (Sturdevant). Blocks of brownfields can be found in most cities in the form of vacant factories, gas stations, parking lots, warehouses, residential sites, and many more types of facilities. Brownfields may lead you to think of dirty, dilapidated, industrial properties, but that is a common misconception. While some brownfields are in fact old industrial sites, others are residential and commercial buildings and landscapes with diminutive or no environmental contamination.

How do Brownfields Impact a Community?

Brownfields can:

• Harm human health and the environment
• Limit job growth, economic development and tax revenue
• Reduce surrounding property values
• Contribute to neighborhood crime (Sturdevant)

http://www.talladega.com/brownfields_grant_public_meeting_2.htm

What are the Benefits of Brownfield Redevelopment?

•      Cleans up the local environment – reduces the possibility of air and water pollution and soil contamination

•      Creates jobs and fosters new investments in the community

•      Increases the productivity of the land

•      Encourages urban revitalization

•      Eliminates eyesores

•      Urban and suburban sprawl deterrent

Obstacles to Redevelopment

•      Concerns regarding contamination

•      Redevelopment requires substantial investment in time and money

•      Legal costs and liability

•      Must meet state, federal, and EPA standards

http://www.seirpc.com/Brownfields/brownfields_openingpage.html

      I definitely think that brownfields should be restored and integrated back into a community. It makes no sense not to make good use of all available space in a community, especially if it means avoiding outward expansion into natural areas.

Citation(s):

     Sturdevant, Ted. "Brownfields | Toxics Cleanup Program | Washington                                   

            Department of Ecology." Washington State Department of Ecology

           | Home Page | ECY WA DOE. Web. 04 Aug. 2011.         

           <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/brownfields/brownfields_hp.html>.

 

Cultured Meat: Think of the Possibilities

     http://aliciand.blogspot.com/2010/02/if-you-dont-eat-your-grass-fed-meat-you.html

      In-vitro meat, also known as cultured meat, is not to be confused with imitation meat that is usually made from soy. In-vitro meat is animal flesh that has never been part of a complete, living creature. Instead, the meat is cultured in a laboratory from an animal’s stem cells. The pioneering group of scientists working to make in-vitro meat a sustainable option for meat production claims this method will be beneficial for the welfare of animals, people, and the global environment.

      In-vitro meat has a number of potential advantages over traditional meat. One of the greatest advantages of cultured meat is that it would decrease the number of animals being raised and slaughtered to feed growing populations. With fewer animals being raised and slaughtered, the livestock that are used for the production of traditional meat could be afforded better living conditions and treatment. Decreased numbers of livestock would mean more space would be available for them to roam about comfortably.

      Cultured meat also benefits consumers by providing them with more choices and, more importantly, reducing the risks of foodborne illnesses. Cultured meat would be produced in sterile conditions that are impossible in conventional animal farms and slaughterhouses.

http://culturedmeat.blogspot.com/

      Furthermore, cultured meat could significantly cut the environmental impact of meat production by using less water and producing far fewer greenhouse gases. The industry of “meat production is among humanity’s most environmentally destructive activities. It is estimated that livestock raised for meat drink up eight percent of the fresh water supply ... and use about 30 percent of the world's non-ice-covered land” (Gertz).

      Another major consequence of meat production is pollution. Annually, it is estimated that approximately “1.4 billion tons of farm animal wastes are produced in the United States. Together with animal feed production, meat production is responsible for the emissions of nitrogen and phosphorus, pesticide contamination of water, heavy metal contamination of soil, and acid rain from ammonia emissions” (Edelman et al. 3). In addition, in the United States, “a quarter of all the human-induced production of the greenhouse gas, methane, comes from farm animals and their waste products” (Edelman et al. 3). Additionally, “clearing land for livestock is also a major driver of the destruction of forests and other wildlife habitat” (Gertz).

http://www.global-warming-truth.com/global-warming/

Cons

• Very expensive to produce with current technology
• Requires enormous capital investment for Research & Development
• Unnatural
• People might be reluctant to switch over from normal meat  (Egastfriend)

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/in-vitro-meat/

      While the in-vitro process is not yet fully developed, the proposed benefits that would accompany this change in meat production would allow for the betterment of livestock welfare, the production of safer food, and reduce the environmental impact of raising large amounts of livestock. In my opinion, it is pretty clear that the pros outweigh the cons.  Yes, cultured meat is unnatural, but so is factory farming.

     Citation(s):

Edelman, P.D., D.C. McFarland, Ph.D., V.A. Mironov, Ph.D., M.D., and J.G.

             Matheny, M.P.H. "In Vitro Cultured Meat Production." 1-27.

             New-harvest.org. 2004. Web. 28 July 2011.

Egastfriend. "In-Vitro Meat – Pros and Cons « Petri Dish to Plate." Petri Dish

             to Plate.16 Nov. 2009. Web. 28 July 2011.

         <http://petridishtoplate.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/in-vitro-meat-

          pros-and-cons/>.

Gertz, Emily. "Study: 'Cultured Meat' Could Save The Environment| TPM

       Idea Lab." TPM Idea Lab. 11 July 2011. Web. 28 July 2011.

       <http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/study-cultured

        -meat-could-save-the-environment.php>.

Elephant Overpopulation in South Africa

http://www.gev.com/2011/07/the-number-of-elephants-in-africa-halved-in-the-last-40-years/

The Situation at Hand

     South Africa’s Kruger National Park is a premier wildlife reserve. Established in 1898, Kruger National Park is unsurpassed in the diversity of its species and is considered “a world leader in advanced environmental management techniques and policies” (Govindasamy). For years, the park has been kept and run well, “its animal husbandry is considered world-class, and the park even stopped culling elephants (killing them as a means of population control) in 1995, mostly because of international and local pressure” (Bell-Leask).

     While elephant populations are thriving in South Africa due to years of successful conservation and the banning of the ivory trade, “Conservationists in some areas are now faced with a new challenge: overpopulation. Scientists and conservationists in Africa and globally believe that there are three solutions: translocation, culling, or contraception ...” (Wray). However, there is no one solution which can solve the problem of overpopulation right away, and is dilemma free and humane. This post is focused on the culling of elephants.

An elephant gazes skywards as a sharpshooter takes aim from his eyrie aboard a hovering helicopter. Photo © IFAW

     “Culling is a cruel, unethical and a scientifically unsound practice that does not consider the welfare implications to elephant society as a whole,” says Jason Bell-Leask, IFAW’s Southern Africa Director. Furthermore, extensive culling could lead to a global loss of biodiversity. While South Africa may be experiencing growing populations of elephants, the rest of the world’s elephant population is threatened and decreasing. If too many elephants are killed off, their population may not be able to bounce back. Also, because South Africa is a major tourist destination due to its wildlife populations, South Africa's tourism industry could collapse if too many elephants are lost.

http://www.cafepress.com/+no_elephant_cull_ornament_round,129348474

Richard Leakey's Opinion - One of the World's Most Respected Conservationists 

     There isn't a single person in the world that wants to see the elephants culled, but there may be little option. The Kruger is a finite size, and there are many people living around its edges. In an ideal world, elephants would roam free wherever they choose, but that ignores the reality of life, and a burgeoning human population. Some elephants will cross into Mozambique and other wild places, but as the population keeps growing there, there is simply just not enough room in South Africa for all the elephants. A thousand years ago elephants roamed freely across the whole continent, and when their population reached high densities, some natural disaster, drought or famine, would occur to peg it back. However when the animals are restricted to a certain area, such as the Kruger, once they have denuded the park they will look outside at the copious farmland and village crops. Unfortunately, as terrible as it may seem, Wildlife Extra believes that there is probably no better way to manage the elephant numbers, though we would be delighted to hear from anyone who has a solution. (Provided by Wildlife Extra News)

http://zaragon.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/trumpet-blast-the-global-elephant-wars/

     Many regions of the United States are overpopulated, yet we are not killing off people to reduce the environmental impact. I just feel that as a whole, mankind sucks. We are so quick to place ourselves before other life forms if we stand to benefit. I understand that elephants are massive creatures and greatly impact their environments, but I feel they deserve the right to live and procreate just as much as we do. Just because we have the power and means to control the fate of another species does not mean we should. The day our government condones culling people to lessen the environmental impact of the human population will be the day I agree it is justifiable to kill large sums of another species because of their impact. Just think of how many species would stand to benefit if many of us were gone. Something tells me the environment would not be too sad to see a good deal of the human population go.

http://zaragon.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/trumpet-blast-the-global-elephant-wars/

Citation(s):

            Bell-Leask, Jason. "Kruger National Park: Elephant Cull or Killing Fields?" Animal

                  Rescue - Animal  Welfare, Save the Whales, Save Animals - IFAW.org | IFAW

                  Web Site. Web. 20 July 2011.

                   <http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_southern_africa/join_campaigns/national_

                  regional_forts/the_debate_on_elephant_culling_in_south_africa/index.php>.

           Govindasamy, Melanie. "Kruger National Park." South Africa National Parks -

                  SANParks - Official Website - Accommodation, Activities, Prices, Reservations.

                  Web. 20 July 2011.

                  <http://www.sanparks.org/misc/sitemap/info.php>.

           "Wildlife Extra News - Elephant Cull Back on the Menu in South Africa - Animal

                   Rights Protests." Wildlife Extra - Online Wildlife Magazine for Wildlife

                   Watchers and Lovers and Guide to UK Nature Reserves. Web. 20 July 2011.   

                   <http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/elephant-cull928.html#cr>.

            Wray, Melissa. "Overpopulation of Elephants: A Mighty Dilemma." Science in Africa,

                  Africa's First On-Line Science Magazine, Home Page. Sept. 2004. Web. 20 July

                  2011.  

                  <http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/september/elephant.htm>.

Oil Production: Too Many Risks?

    http://thatcarblog.com/?m=201008  

  Today, the United States’ dependence on oil as a chief source of energy is a foremost concern in the opinion of the American public. And while gas prices are steadily escalating, many wonder what the future holds for the state of our environment, economy, and way of living in relation to how we generate and implement sources of energy. While there are those who feel oil supplies are rapidly nearing their end, there are others who simply believe there is plenty of oil to go around for generations to come – it is just a matter of increasing production and availability. Positions aside, one thing is clear: the topic of oil, in its many forms, is an increasingly growing issue that is gaining momentum, but not being so quick as to be resolved.

 http://beta.pixelsurgeon.com/reviews/review.php?id=824  

Proponent Position

      The need and demand for oil in this country, as well as many others, is a current reality. Oil and natural gas have become vital to practically everything we do. These resources are tied to our transportation methods, agricultural developments, means of construction, and so many other products and services we have become dependent upon. No other energy sources have proven to be as versatile and effective as oil has. To try and establish new sources of energy would take too much time, money, research, and labor. Additionally, there are no guarantees that these sources would be able to withstand the demand placed on them.

 http://www.energyinsights.net/cgi-script/csArticles/articles/000055/005508-p.htm

Opposing Position

      Arguments against the rampant rate of oil production and depletion boils down to two main points: the damage to the environment and various life forms is too risky and too great (loss of biodiversity), and we will eventually exhaust all the oil; in other words, our ability to keep up with the growing demand and need for oil as a primary energy source cannot be carried on forever.

      As alluded to previously, the production of oil poses serious threats to the environment and various ecosystems. For instance, take into account the event that has been dubbed the largest oil spill in the United States. On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker, struck Bligh Reef and “spilled 260,000 barrels (10.9 million gallons) of crude oil into Prince William Sound along the coast of Alaska ... According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, more than 30,000 birds ... and between 3,500 and 5,500 sea otters died as a result of the spill” (Berg and Hager 415). Furthermore, “The area’s killer whale and harbor seal populations declined, salmon migration was disrupted, and the fishing season in the area was halted that year” (Berg and Hager 415). Although not intentional, the Alaskan oil spill of 1989 caused irreparable damage to a fragile ecosystem. Oil spills are occurring more frequently, and the neighboring life forms and habitats affected pay the greatest price.

http://www.gulfspilloil.com/the-sticky-details-bp-oil-spill-facts-that-you-should-not-forget 

Something to Think About

      Oil and natural gas supply approximately 63 percent of the energy used in the United States (Berg and Hager 412). Coal, nuclear power, and hydropower serve as the United States’ other leading energy sources. Moreover, “Globally, oil and natural gas provide 61.5 percent of the world’s energy...” (Berg and Hager 412). Oil and natural gas supply more than half of the energy on the global scale. How long can we keep this up?

My Position

      We seem to only truly care, get upset, or take notice and action when we find ourselves at the short end of the stick. To hell with everything else – just so long as we come out on top. This may be the current social norm, but there is no reason we cannot change it. We, the human race, just need to get out of our own way. 

      Oil depletion is not only a major concern for the United States but for the world as well. Our reliance on oil already has too many implications for our environment, economy, national security, and the lives of which we have come accustomed to. Arguments aside, one thing is for certain: oil is a finite resource. With increasing demand and growing populations, oil is bound to fall short somewhere. One would think that if we, meaning the human race, could collectively become more efficient in how we utilize energy the problem would go away and all would be well. This assumption, however, is problematic because the needs and demands of both the developed world’s population and the developing world’s population are already way too high. Becoming more efficient would certainly help relieve some of the pressure placed on oil, but the problems of pollution, depletion of soil, and loss of wildlife would still exist and persist. I cannot think of any practical solutions to the oil/energy crisis, and apparently, I am not the only one. I hate to sound all doom and gloom, but that seems to be the forecast in store for both biotic and abiotic environments.

http://www.ecofriendlydaily.com/news/dependence-on-foreign-oil/

Citation(s):

           

            Berg, Linda R., and Mary C. Hager. Visualizing Environmental Science.  

                      Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009. Print.



Smog: Harder to Breathe

     Smog is a type of air pollution. In its most basic form, smog is the result of fog mixing with smoke or other atmospheric pollutants. Photochemical smog, however, is an “air pollution that is a result of the interaction of sunlight with certain chemicals in the atmosphere” (Oblack). Smog-forming pollutants derive from several sources “such as automobile exhaust, power plants, factories and many consumer products, including paint, hairspray, charcoal starter fluid, ... and even plastic popcorn packaging. In typical urban areas, at least half of the smog precursors come from cars, buses, trucks, and boats” (West).

http://inhabitat.com/does-pollution-actually-fight-global-warming/

Smog and Your Health

  According to the American Lung Association, your lungs and heart can be permanently affected by air pollution and smog. While the young and the elderly are particularly susceptible to the effects of pollution, anyone with both short and long term exposure can suffer ill health effects. Problems include shortness of breath, coughing, wheezing, bronchitis, pneumonia, inflammation of pulmonary tissues, heart attacks, lung cancer, increased asthma-related symptoms, fatigue, heart palpitations, and even premature aging of the lungs and death. (Oblack)

http://inhabitat.com/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10897116does-pollution-actually-fight-global-warming/

   Cleaning Up the Mess

    Smog and other forms of air pollution can be reduced through energy efficiency and conservation improvements at both the industrial and consumer level.

  Air quality regulations such as the federal Clean Air Act in the United States have led to significant progress over the last twenty years. Additionally, new industrial facilities and power plants are being designed with innovative technology that creates substantially fewer pollutants than facilities with older technology. (Kammen)

     Of course, cleaning up pollution means spending money and lots of it. Many fear that the cost will ultimately fall onto the taxpayers’ laps. And yes, taxpayers and consumers would be expected to help pay for purifying their environment. And why shouldn’t we pay? I mean, after all, we are the ones causing the pollution; therefore we cannot expect our government to flip the whole bill. A major share of the cleanup cost should be placed on the government, but not the entire cost. It is called giving back. When it comes right down to it, the cost is not a matter of money but a matter of our health.

     http://blog.privatefleet.com.au/home/breathing-easy-in-the-cabin/

     Doing the right thing and combating pollution – be it air, water, soil, etc. – is a must for our survival. Perhaps a fair amount of people do not care about other life forms or habitats, but surely those people care about their own health and safety. Paying higher prices and taxes is not fun for anyone, but the benefits of a cleaner, safer, and healthier environment will pay off in the long run.

My Perspective

     When we turn on a light or crank up a car we tend to not focus on how the energy being utilized is generated. Furthermore, we tend to not think about all the harmful emissions being released. And yet, when we carry out these routine activities subconsciously, we are contributing to the increasing levels of hazardous air pollutants in our atmosphere. Pollution, in any form, is not only unhealthy but expensive as well. Air pollution carries the potential to destroy crops, depreciate property value, raise bills and taxes, create health problems for humans and other forms of life, and create countless other environmental hazards whose cost is impossible to calculate. Letting pollution continue will prove to be far more expensive than spending the money necessary to reduce levels of pollution. We have to do whatever it takes.

Citation(s)

Kammen, Daniel. "Energy Issues - Air." Chevron - Willyoujoinus.com. Chevron Corporation.

              Web. 06 July 2011.

             <http://www.willyoujoinus.com/energy.issues/energychallengesandopportunities/

             energyandtheenvironment/air/?gclid=CPaW4_7n76kCFQHu7Qodi0B5Yw>.

Oblack, Rachelle. "What Is Smog? - Air Pollution and How Photochemical Smog Forms."

              About.com - Weather. The New York Times Company. Web. 06 July 2011.

              <http://weather.about.com/od/ozoneinformation/qt/smogcity.htm>.

West, Larry. "What Causes Smog?" About.com - Environmental Issues. The New York Times

        Company. Web. 06 July 2011.

        <http://environment.about.com/od/smogfaq/f/smog_faq_five.htm>.