Archive for the 'Student blog entries' Category

Jul 02 2018

Promise in the Belize Barrier Reef

Published by under Student blog entries

Last Christmas I was falling over the side of a small boat off the coast of San Pedro, Belize. San Pedro is an island so small, its inhabitants don’t even own cars. Instead, everyone putters around in supped up golf carts, conducting their business. For most of them, that business is eco-tourism. The eastern coast of the island is dotted with dive centers, water sports shops, tour guides, etc, and during my time there I dove 12 times. It was the most beautiful, bio diverse place I have ever seen, I never wanted to leave. But after my 10 day stay I got in the island hopper and looked down at the black and blue reef, wondering if it would still be there when I came back.

Its been 7 months since I left the Ambergries Caye and I’ve really missed it. Luckily, I think it will still be there for me in the future because last week UNESCO announced the reef’s removal from the World Heritage Sites in Danger List. According to the organization, “the Committee considered that safeguarding measures taken by the country, notably the introduction of a moratorium on oil exploration in the entire maritime zone of Belize and the strengthening of forestry regulations allowing for better protection of mangroves, warranted the removal of the site from the World Heritage List in Danger”.

The site had been added on to the In Danger list in 1996 due to the threat of irreversible damage from coastal construction and oil exploration when seismic testing for oil was permitted just 6 miles from the site. Public outcry from Belizeans, half of whom rely on the reef for their livelihood, followed. Local efforts were supported by a collation that included WWF, Oceana, and the Belize Tourism Industry Association and over the last 18 months, Belize’s government has put in place protections to secure the Belize Barrier Reef from immediate threats, this according to the World Wildlife Foundation. These include a landmark moratorium on oil exploration that was adopted in December 2017, which made Belize one of only three countries in the world with such legislation (WWF, 2018).

Belize has shown that it is possible to reverse nature loss and create a sustainable future.” – Marco Lambertini, Director General of WWF-International

However, despite all the promise in Belize, I can help but report on what I saw there and what I know to be true about climate change, and add a dash of reality to the discussion. During my dives in the reef I saw some of the most beautiful fish, corals, sharks, an landscapes. But, I also saw white, dead coral everywhere. The temperature of our oceans are undeniably increasing, and with that comes the death of coral, no matter how oil free and ecosystem is. So while I’d love to pretend that the Belize Barrier Reef is totally safe and healthy, I cant ignore the larger, global picture. If the rising of sea surface temperatures is not mitigated this reef will return to its spot on UNESCO’s Sites in Danger list. We can’t lets milestones like these lull us into a false sense of security that prevents us from reaching new ones.

If anyone is curious, is some pictures form my trip this winter:

– – Owen Ruth

No responses yet

Jul 02 2018

Response: Tesla’s New Master Plan and the Future of Electric Cars

Published by under Student blog entries

Will’s blog post has become a really interesting point of comparison after almost 2 years have passed. Looking back at what Musk’s most recent plan was back in 2016, I’m pleased to see many of the points coming to fruition now. First of all, Musk has been heavily investing in solar roof technology and development on the self-driving capabilities of Tesla cars has been a strong focus both for the company and for national news outlets. The second point in his second Master Plan, expanding the electric vehicle product line to address all major segments, has recently been announced. Tesla will not only continue the production of SUVs and sedans but will also begin producing electric pickup trucks, vans, and commercial semi-trucks while also bringing back a new and improved roadster.

While the Model 3 had a couple hiccups in reaching the consumer on the expected timeline, the efforts put forth by Tesla are not going unnoticed. Now with an affordable option on the electric car market, especially from a luxury and expert brand name, consumers options are increasing and so is general interest in electric vehicles. This interest is not limited to the consumer side of the equation. Just as predicted in Will’s blog post, large car companies have begun to invest more money in research and development surrounding electric vehicles. With an electric semi-truck in the making, a significant proportion of driving miles in the United States can now be made without insane emissions, but it’s not that simple.

One aspect I believe is important to analyze when looking at electric vehicles is whether or not their time has really come. Currently I don’t see many charging stations while driving down the road, which would deter me from making a purchase. More importantly, looking at the concept of an electric car from a holistic mindset, the upfront cost can be incredibly high (depending on make and model), with uncertainty in where gas prices may go. The investment may not pay off for many years if gas prices unexpectedly drop, but in the same sense the investment may pay off early if gas prices rise. Similarly, there is a general green connotation with electric cars in that their use is less damaging to the environment due to decreased emissions. Although this may be true while you’re driving down the road, when an electric car is charging it requires energy. The overall emissions from an electric car should thus include the emissions from the respective process used to generate the electricity that charged the car. As of right now, much of the electricity generation happens from coal power plants, which have significant emissions. Although advances have clearly been made in the past 2 years, there are still areas of improvement, some of which are contingent upon large scale energy resource changes.

 

References:

Etherington, Darrell. “Tesla to Reveal a Pickup Truck within Two Years, and Final Model 3 Design in July.” TechCrunch, TechCrunch, 17 Apr. 2017, techcrunch.com/2017/04/13/tesla-to-reveal-a-pickup-truck-within-two-years-and-final-model-3-design-in-july/.

Korosec, Kirsten. “Elon Musk Reveals Tesla Truck With a Model 3 Heart.” Fortune, Fortune, 17 Nov. 2017, fortune.com/2017/11/16/tesla-semi-truck-model-3-unveiling/.

No responses yet

Jul 02 2018

Is Banning Plastic Straws a Viable Solution?

Published by under Student blog entries

So far in 2018, three states have contemplated adding legislation around the use of plastic straws, but there is strong resistance. As of right now, this legislation is pending in both California and New York, and has already been shut down in Hawaii. It makes sense that the states fighting against single use plastic straws are coastal states due to the dramatic impact they can have on marine environments. One alternative to an outright ban that some cities have used is to provide plastic straws only to customers who request one rather than giving them out to everyone as a default.

BYMANDESIGNS VIA GETTY IMAGES

Before reading this article, I had always tried my best to avoid using plastic straws as much as possible. I figured that restaurants might save money from having legislation not allowing single use plastic straws while avoiding any negative backlash from the community as it isn’t their decision. I now realize that I hadn’t considered the full lifecycle assessment of the product and that users may have reasons other than consumer convenience.

At its core, searching for a solution to plastic straws is seen by some in the field of marine contamination as low-hanging fruit due to the unnecessary nature of a straw, at least for most consumers. There are those consumers who would be adversely affected by a ban on plastic straws, even if paper straws were instituted as a replacement, those living with disabilities. One opposer to the ban suffers from cerebral palsy and would thus be unable to drink independently without the assistance a straw provides. In this way, the argument becomes centered around whether disability rights take precedence over environmental legislation. Although alternatives are available, paper straws have been noted to get soggy and become a choking hazard, and reusable or compostable straws are more expensive. This price aspect is important to note due to the fact that statistically, people with disabilities are more likely to be below the federal poverty level. The possibility for opt-in proposals, however, still remains acceptable.

Fast food chains and companies like McDonald’s use millions of straws daily, but stockholders of McDonald’s rejected a proposal to focus on efforts to find alternatives to plastic straws. The company claims that this is due to the fact that it is already invested in research for alternatives, likely due to the plastic straw ban in the UK leading them to invest in paper straws as a replacement. The problem arises that many cities opt-in programs don’t affect takeout-only restaurants and only apply to sit-down restaurants.

Gaining buy-in for government regulation limiting the acceptable behaviors of individuals is never an easy task. In many situations, the convenience of a straw can make an experience such as drinking a Frappuccino with whipped cream that much more enjoyable and less messy. Therefore, the solution of a government ban may not be the right answer, although this is a sign that both consumer and government officials are aware of the problems posed by plastic straws, and the larger broad problem of marine plastic contamination.

 

References

 Powell, Robyn. “Opinion | I Need Plastic Straws To Drink. I Also Want To Save The Environment.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 13 June 2018, www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-powell-straw-ban_us_5b1e76ade4b0bbb7a0df9303.

Stateline. “She Sells Soda By The Seashore – But Maybe Not With A Plastic Straw.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 29 June 2018, www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/she-sells-soda-by-the-seashore-but-maybe-not-with_us_5b3636e5e4b0121d528acb53.

No responses yet

Jul 25 2016

Response: What’s the deal with the Clean Power Plan?

This is a neat article, Holly, and it’s funny because there’s a lot of overlap between this and the one I just wrote about the RNC’s recently released environmental platform. After reading up some more on this debate, it amazes me how so much of the power and control in this country’s judicial system is achieved through lawsuits and stalling.

 

A new point that I’d like to bring into consideration is the fact that out of the 24 states suing, the ones at the forefront of this case are also the ones that produce the highest amounts of coal, and CO2, in the country. The case is called “State of West Virginia, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al.,” after all, and West Virginia is the nation’s 2nd largest coal producer, accounting for 11%. The main power—pun intended—behind this suit comes from those who are litigating as petitioners. Those petitioning against it are almost all hiding behind the guise of trade associations that they are members of. What happens is, the power companies become members of various trade associations that lobby on their behalf, and their membership does not have to be made public. So when those associations petition the courts, their funding comes from the countless power companies privately associated with them.

It’s a legal swamp that’s being plunged into—the case is the consolidation of 38 separate cases—and some that belong to trade associations, such as Dominion Energy, have actually voiced support for the CPP. Although Dominion is one of the large producers of fossil fuels, it also seems to be gearing for a shift toward renewable alternatives. They were, after all, the ones who provided the majority of the funding for Jennette’s Pier’s wind turbine project. While their renewable initiatives are likely rooted in self-interest, it is a promising sign when large power companies start to move toward the bandwagon of cleaner alternatives. The day that companies realize that coal is more of a financial risk than investment and renewable energy is an advantageous side to be on, is the day that we will start a global transition to clean energy.

Because of how we are set up democratically, our courts allow (ideally) for everyone to be heard equally. The problem with this is that groups with access to exorbitant resources manage to overpower and stifle those they don’t agree with, thus trampling on their right to be heard, but all 100% legally. Hopefully, when the court hears oral arguments starting September 27th, 2016, the voices of reason will be heard just as clearly as the voices behind pollution.

 

Comments Off on Response: What’s the deal with the Clean Power Plan?

Jul 25 2016

Response: Tesla’s New Master Plan and the Future of Electric Cars

Published by under Student blog entries

 

15363614807_0805033647_z

(Source: Bob Rhodes, 2014, Flickr)

As Will outlined in his blog post Tesla’s New Master Plan and the Future of Electric Cars, Elon Musk has been successful in implementing his four step plan to further the electric car industry. Musk’s plan may be brilliant, and the benefits could even reach further than most anticipated. Of course, there are some social and practical challenges that must be overcome before everyone is cruising in their own electric cars.

The expansion of electric vehicles has the obvious benefit of decreasing the air pollution that come from exhaust pipes. Some argue that everyone driving electric cars isn’t the saving grace if much of the electricity is being generated from fossil fuels. Though this must be taken into consideration when considering Tesla’s success, it is important to note that the burning of fossil fuels in a car is far less efficient than doing so at utility scales.

3468316851_d865ed1df7_z

Move over gas stations — make way for charging stations. (Source: Robert Wertheimer, 2008, Flickr)

Tesla’s electric cars will be most effective when used in conjunction with other sustainable technologies. For example, an electric car could be used as an energy-storing device for a home fitted with renewable technologies like solar or geothermal. The electric car could harness the excess energy created by residential installations or reduce demand during peak-demand by charging at night.

8303917681_2f64b5beb7_z

Electric vehicles can be utilized as energy storage. (Source: Ching Leemun, 2012, Flickr)

This reality may be several years away, but progressive legislation could speed up the process. Places like California are already paving the way to sustainable growth and development. The states cap and trade system has pushed energy providers to invest in cleaner technologies. Though funding may be running out, the Clean Vehicle Rebate Program helped put thousands of new electric cars on the road. Businesses have economic incentives to build charging stations with the tax credit that California provides.

The list of policies that favor green technology is extensive, but many states are still stuck in the climate change debate. If President Obama’s Clean Power Plan is able to move forward, perhaps electric vehicles could be a jumping off point for many state carbon reduction plans.

Comments Off on Response: Tesla’s New Master Plan and the Future of Electric Cars

Jul 25 2016

Tesla’s New Master Plan and the Future of Electric Cars

Published by under Student blog entries

In 2006, Elon Musk released his first Master Plan for  Tesla Motors, Inc. while he was still just on the board of directors. At this time, the Roadster had yet to be released and the idea of financing an electric car company was considered laughable in the industry. He laid out a four step plan that was based around providing an inexpensive electric car through the sale of expensive ones that will gradually drive the price down to one that everyday Americans can afford. Once the Roadster was released, it became a novelty item for those that could afford it, a unique car for the rich to collect.

hero-01

Courtesy of Tesla

And then the Model S dropped, resembling a mix between KIT from Night Rider and the StarShip Enterprise while also not completely breaking the bank. No longer were electric cars those ugly boxes driven by your hippy neighbor, instead its a luxury car that causes onlookers to drool in envy. In 2015, the Model S became the #1 best selling plug-in car, selling over 50,000 cars around the world.

10 years later, Musk releases his second Master Plan which highlights a new direction for the company. Now that Tesla can provide a relatively cheap electric car, with the soon to be released Model 3, the focus can be placed on improving this technology to the point where it would be dumb not to drive on of these cars. The new plan, as he puts it, is:

  1. Create stunning solar roofs with seamlessly integrated battery storage
  2. Expand the electric vehicle product line to address all major segments
  3. Develop a self-driving capability that is 10X safer than manual via massive fleet learning
  4. Enable your car to make money for you when you aren’t using it

These ideas are not just important for the next wave of Tesla cars, they’re going to make advances in other fields. The work and innovation required to build the kind of solar panels that Musk wants on his cars will lead to more efficient solar panels and better battery storage systems. The self-driving car will be a major breakthrough and represent one of the first implementations of A.I. in a system that will define the future of automotive transport.

tesla.com

Courtesy of Tesla

The large car companies have been scrambling to find something to topple the giant that is Tesla from the electric throne, with exciting results. The new GM Bolt intends to be released at $30,000, $5,000 cheaper than the Model 3 with the same 200 mile range. This new Master Plan, and the one before it, outline an ambitious strategy that has sparked intense competition as a result. This kind of competition can only be good for the consumer, driving down the price of electric cars while also putting a focus on energy technologies.

Much like Elon Musk’s other investments into SpaceX and the Hyperloop, the success of Tesla is not measured in dollars. Musk decided that because we “must get off fossil fuels anyway and that virtually all scientists agree that dramatically increasing atmospheric and oceanic carbon levels is insane, the faster we achieve sustainability, the better” (Musk, 2016) and invested his own money to drive a much needed industry forward. When we are all driving automated electric cars within the next ten years, we will have Elon Musk to thank.

References

Musk, E., 2016, Master Plan, Part Deux, Tesla Motors, https://www.tesla.com/blog/master-plan-part-deux

 

 

Comments Off on Tesla’s New Master Plan and the Future of Electric Cars

Jul 25 2016

The Grand Old Party: Not so Grand for the Environment

The Republican Party just released its platform on July 18th, which details its principles and policies to help guide the public during this election season. In order to get a heads-up on what Donald Trump—the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) presidential nominee—might do if elected President, Live Science examined the party’s platform, as well as the scientific research behind each stance. Then, they put together a handy guide that details each issue, the RNC’s stance on it, and the scientific research that either backs it up or contradicts it. For the sake of objectivity, they will be going through the same process for the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) platform that was released on July 21st.

Photo Credit: Joe Brusky

Photo Credit: Joe Brusky

What the comparison reveals is a long list of ways that the RNC plans to derail environmental conservation efforts. It is clear when reading the RNC’s statements that they see no imminent threat to the environment caused by human actions. Therefore, they see no need to enact legislation to protect it. Their statement on the Keystone XL pipeline is as follows: “The current President’s job-killing combination of extremism and ineptitude threatens to create a permanent energy shortage. We are committed to approving the Keystone XL Pipeline and to streamlining permitting for the development of other oil and natural gas pipelines.” The pipeline would carry tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to Nebraska—its coverage would total 2,639 miles. The science behind whether or not the Keystone XL pipeline hurts the environment does not coincide with the GOP’s stance. In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commented on the proposal, stating that if the pipeline were to run at full capacity, its yearly greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be equivalent to putting an additional 5.7 million cars on the road. The project would also require the tar sands to be processed at a carbon reservoir in Alberta, which would release large amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere. This would make it pretty unlikely that the international goal of preventing the Earth from warming more than 3.6° F would be met.

The scariest part about their new platform is the fact that they refuse to acknowledge just that—facts. Under the GOP’s “Protecting our Environment” section, the first line actually claims that “the environment is getting cleaner and healthier.” Not according to countless studies conducted by the UNEP, NASA, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, to name a few. Although they do acknowledge the need for renewable energy, they don’t seem to be in any hurry until the already-established oil, nuclear, and natural gas companies have come up with their own technology to do so.

By National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps [Public domain]

By National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps [Public domain]

After reading the GOP’s platform, it is clear to me that there is a blatant disrespect on their part for the scientific community as a whole. The GOP has long fought to discredit any scientific findings that don’t align with their political agenda. Whenever science—which is so heavily peer-reviewed and self-correcting—interferes with their opinions, they simply refuse to listen. Science says that gravity is a real thing? That doesn’t threaten their beliefs, so they allow that to be put in the textbooks. Science says that climate change is a real thing? They stand behind Lamar Smith, a Republican chairman, as he accuses the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of rushing and not properly peer-reviewing a study they published about climate change. The fact that a Republican chairman, with his only scientific background being that he took basic science courses in college as part of his non-scientific degree in American Studies, can rightfully challenge an entire group of some of the most educated and accomplished scientists out there is worrisome and insulting to science as a whole.

The whole purpose of checks and balances is so that no one branch can become too powerful. But is that Constitutional system really working that well if one branch continuously attacks and attempts to dismantle the role and authority of the other?

 

 

Comments Off on The Grand Old Party: Not so Grand for the Environment

Jul 24 2016

Natural Gas: May Not Be the Bridge After All

Published by under Student blog entries

Flares burn off excess methane at an oil and gas field. Credit: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Flares burn off excess methane at an oil and gas field. Credit: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

A study recently done by researchers at Purdue and Cornell universities focused on gaining a better understanding of the levels of methane that are emitted during the removal process of natural gas from the earth. It was widely thought that natural gas would be the “bridge” fuel between coal based systems and renewable sources. It was marked as a cleaner fuel than carbon-rich coal, but not quite to the mark of the carbon-free renewable forms and thus would help in the transition process of shifting energy dependence from the former to the latter.

In a report from the IPCC, it was said that natural gas as a bridge fuel would only be effective if “few gases escape into the atmosphere during natural gas production and distribution” (Magill 2014). For a while, it was believed that this was the case that is until this recent study, and others like it, were published. They highlight an important flaw of the natural gas extraction process to be “fugitive” emissions that escape while a well is being drilled (Magill 2014). Methane emissions are the most common of the fugitive emissions which is alarming being that methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20 year period (Magill 2014). The drilling process potentially emits up to 1,000 times the methane than previously supposed (Magill 2014). This number could be even higher considering other unknown factors of the quantification and distribution processes. Dana Caulton, a researcher from Purdue, said that emissions from drilling are completely left out of some of the EPA’s greenhouse gas inventories because it is “assumed to be negligible” (Magill 2014).

Interpolated methane concentration ∼1 km downwind of pad Delta, showing isolated methane plume near the center of the transect. Credit: Dana R. Caulton et al. PNAS 2014;111:6237-6242

Interpolated methane concentration ∼1 km downwind of pad Delta, showing isolated methane plume near the center of the transect. Credit: Dana R. Caulton et al. PNAS 2014;111:6237-6242

When the wells are being drilled, the natural gas that was contained in the shale layers is able to be released and then enters the atmosphere. Large amounts of natural gas are also able to leak out into the atmosphere via cracks and breaks in the distribution system. Fixing these leaks would not only be strenuous and costly, but also time consuming. This is definitely not ideal when considering that the IPCC also reported that we only have between 15 and 20 years for the natural gas “bridge” before our transition should be complete (Magill 2014).

It is not surprising that this method for providing energy has shown to be ineffective, given all of the already known controversies that come with natural gas extraction. With this new data, it is as important as ever for us to look towards renewable energy sources. Without this bridge, we no longer have as much time to carry out the lofty transition and must begin now if we hope make a positive difference in our efforts to combat global warming.

 

References

Magill, Bobby. 2014. “New Methane Leak Data Adds Doubt About Future Of Natural Gas As ‘Bridge’ Fuel.” The Huffington Post. April 16. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/16/methane-leak-natural_n_5161247.html?utm_hp_ref=energy.

 

Comments Off on Natural Gas: May Not Be the Bridge After All

Jul 21 2016

Discoveries from Disasters

Published by under Student blog entries

When the BP oil spill named Deepwater Horizon happened in 2010, BP set aside $500 million dollars for a private company to research its outcome and the overall environment it was affecting. With millions in the bank account Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (GoMRI) funded the efforts of 1,200 scientists to monitor the gulf and its inhabitants.

One of the fundamental discoveries that were made by observers were the paths of the oil itself. The oil did not follow some of the large currents that satellites had identified as the mainstreams in the gulf. This at first puzzled the scientists, but also gave them a chance to monitor and notice come medium sized currents that had never been available to the human eye because of the oil that was traveling by the currents. As many scientists will state, research and understanding is often limited by the mechanics and devices they deploy, and also human observation.

DriftersThrough the deployment of cheap drifters, the scientists were able to measure some of the first smaller currents in the gulf. This discovery was a success for the team as they tracked the sub-mesoscale currents.

As many people during the oil spill were concerned with mammals and other viewable aquatic animals, the scientists were more concerned with the effects the spill was having on more primary animals including zooplankton and insects. While many of these animals go unnoticed, some of them are the habitat builders and he foundation of the aquatic food web. The oil spill created an opportunity to broaden the scope of creatures being tracked and counted, and putting some species on the map for the first time in history. They have identified at least fifteen new organism since the oil spill, and can now begin to track the effects of these organisms in the environments and also the effects of the oil spill on the organisms themselves.

Another discovery that was noted of worthy of investigation was natural oil seeps. The oil that the companies are tapping into for human combustion also have natural seeps that leak up to 1.4 million barrels of oil into the waters every year.  These reservoirs that are leaking are feeding grounds for many microbes that are at the base of the food chain. The microbes that digest the hydrocarbon-rich oil are then preyed upon and create a thriving unique environment that scientists study by videography. The film is used to understand the process of the oil leaking, and contributing factors to the oil release. These sites are not only important to understand because of the oil leaks, or the animal life, but because of the crystalline formations of methane, that are a potential climate change impact if enough methane is collected in the marine environment. These formations are poorly understood, and the spill allowed for dedicated time and efforts to be focused on the formations to understand their future and current hazards.

 

References

Waters, H. (2015, August 20). Five Things gulf oil spill taught us about ocean . Retrieved from Smithsonian : http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/five-things-gulf-oil-spill-has-taught-us-about-ocean-180955036/?no-ist

 

 

Comments Off on Discoveries from Disasters

Jul 21 2016

The Dangers of Ignorance

Published by under Student blog entries

Last year, December 2015, President Obama passed a bill that officially banned micro-beads in the United States (Imam, 2015). The purpose behind this bill was to protect the waterways of the country since water filters were unable to catch the minuscule exfoliating beads as they traveled through the underground sewage network.

Some cheered for this victory in environmental protection and others were disappointed by the discontinuation of their favorite skincare products. I, on the other hand, was just surprised because I had never even thought that my hand soap or face-wash could have a negative environmental impact. I was ignorant. In hindsight, it was clear that the beads were not good for the natural environment since they were plastic and non-biodegradable.

Though micro-beads are now banned, there are still plenty of everyday products that we use without thinking that damage the home that we are trying so hard to maintain and protect. If you use either sunscreens, moisturizing lotions, lip balm, lipstick or other similar cosmetic products then you might be playing a part in the death of around 3 million sharks a year (Lima, 2016).

In the liver of these deep sea sharks is an organic compound called Squalene. Squalene is coveted and utilized by the cosmetic industry due to its softening effect and non-greasiness (Lima, 2016). Some companies have switched over to the more sustainable plant-based Squalene, but not all have done this since plant-based Squalene is more expensive (Yeomans, 2012). Due to the demand for the cheaper shark-based Squalene, shark populations are taking a hit from being hunted for their livers (Lima, 2016).

There are several simple things that we can do in order to make sure that we do not play a part in the shark hunt.

  1. Read the labels! If the labels do not specify where the Squalene originates from then call and ask the supplier.
  2. Share the news and do not buy products from suppliers that support shark liver harvesting.

Just as environmentally damaging products and actions may sometimes be as obvious and big as an oil spill, they can also be as small as the micro-beads that used to be in most face-washes. It is up to us to be aware of the things we are using and their implications. Ignorance should not be an excuse in this day and age.

Citations

  1. Imam, Jareen. “Microbead Ban Signed by President Obama.” CNN. Cable News Network, 31 Dec. 2015. Web. 20 July 2016.
  2. Nima, Natalia. “Is Your Makeup Killing Sharks?” ENN. Environmental News Network, 30 June 2016. Web. 20 July 2016.
  3. Yeomans, Michelle. “Squalane: What Some Suppliers May Not Be Telling You…” CosmeticsDesign-Europe.com. N.p., 23 Nov. 2012. Web. 20 July 2016.

Comments Off on The Dangers of Ignorance

Next »