A growing U.S. population also demands a growing need for energy. It is lucky then, that the U.S. apparently has an abundant supply of natural gas. Most natural gas in the U.S. is not close to the surface, it is usually obscured by rocks, shale or coal. This is where hydraulic fracturing or "fracking"comes in. Fracking is a process of extracting natural gas through injecting water, proppants and chemicals down a well to fracture the rock and shale so that the gas escapes through the cracks and can be collected.
This sounds harmless, but is it?
First concern is the chemicals being injected into the well which include: hydrochloric acid, peroxydisulfates, gluteraldehyde, sodium or potassium carbonate, acetic acid, methanol, ammonium bisulfate, sodium acrylate-acrylamide copolymer, polyacrylamide (PAM), petroleum distillates, ammonium chloride, ethylene glycol, polyacrylate, isopropanol and ethoxylated alcohol. The oil and gas industry state that the chemical component of the tracking fluid is between 0.5-2% of the total volume of fluid. This doesn't sound like much but when they pump millions of gallons of this fluid into the ground the chemical build-up is somewhere between 80-330 tons. The fluid does not stay in the well, there are frequent flowbacks and blowouts where the fluid is pushed back up to the surface. This fluid, it is believed, contaminates ground water in the surrounding areas (there is currently not much proof since no in-depth studies have been done to determine the effects of fracking fluid leaching into ground water). However, a 2011 report by MIT stated that there was evidence of natural gas migration into fresh water supplies most likely caused by substandard fracking wells. A 2011 Duke University study also raised concerns about explosion hazards due to the common build up of methane gas in fracking wells.
The New York Times reported on the discovery of radiation in the fracking wastewater which is processed through water treatment plants. However, water treatment plants do not test for radioactivity and are not equipped to remove radioactive elements from the water, so much of the radioactive elements remain in the water and are pumped back into the water supply.
Elevated levels of Iodine-131 was found in Philadelphia's drinking water a chemical that has been linked to thyroid cancer. Iodine-131 is a radioactive tracer used in hydraulic fracturing and Philadelphia is down river from shale fracking operations.
Second concern is the geological stability of the disposal of fracking fluid. On Christmas Eve and New Years Eve 2011, Youngstown, Ohio experienced a 2.7 and a 4.0 earthquake - a very rare occurrence. However, in 2011 Youngstown, Ohio has seen an increase in earthquakes with nine seismic events from March-November 2011. Concerned about the increase in geologic instability, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources in November 2011 asked Columbia University's Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) to place mobile seismographs in the vicinity to better determine what was going on.
The study found that the likely cause of the quakes was due to fracking wastewater being injected into the ground. Apparently, the fluid created lubrication between two abutting rock faces and caused slippage along the rock boundary. The geological instability from the waste water pumping will be felt for at least another year even if no more water is pumped into the ground. Ohio has suspended this practice pending a full investigation.
Most of this evidence is circumstantial, however, it is compelling considering that many of these occurrences have been increasing in intensity and frequency since the fracking boom began five or six years ago. The practice of fracking should be investigated and scientifically tested by independent observers to ascertain if it can be done safely without environmental degradation. Of course, the best thing to do is to put more investment into developing energy that is not dependent on fossil fuels, since this is the only truly sustainable path forward.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
GM crops and the butterfly effect
For years naturalists and scientists alike have observed the decline of the monarch butterfly, honey bees and bumble bees and wondered why their populations were declining so rapidly. Recent studies have found that the current global phenomenon of pollinator decline is largely due to genetically modified crops.
GM crops have been widely used in the United States since 1996 with corporations like Monsanto and Bayer leading the introduction of seeds to farmers that have been modified on the molecular level. This is not the traditional method of cross breading to form hybrid plant species. The new generation of genetic manipulation is done by taking genes from one plant that may not be even remotely similar to the crop plant and injecting it into the plant tissue of a seed or by infecting the seeds with a bacteria that carries the new DNA, stimulating the seed to accept the new genetic material.
The Monsanto seeds have also been treated with their special blend of herbicides and supplied to corn farmers in the United States mid-western region. These "round-up ready" seeds have been linked directly to the decline in monarch butterfly populations in the past fifteen years. Monarch butterflies are dependent on one type of plant to reproduce, the milkweed plant. They only lay their eggs on these plants, and their caterpillars only eat the leaves of these plants. The milkweed is vital to a healthy monarch butterfly population and until the late 1990's corn fields and the surrounding areas were abundant with milkweed. But, being a weed, this plant has nearly disappeared from the mid-western United States since these weed resistant crops were introduced, endangering the survival of the iconic monarch butterfly. Read more about these studies here.
Bayer has been supplying seeds to farmers infused with neonicotinoid pesticides so that the plant itself has a pesticide built into its vascular system. This pesticide stays with the plant even during pollination, which is lethal to pollinators such as bees and butterflies. During planting and pollination, neonicotinoid pesticide is released, bees carry the neonic-infused pollen back to their hives which damages their immune systems and homing abilities. This makes them more susceptible to mites which have long been suspected as being the culprit for the bee population decline. Read more about these new studies here.
What is particularly disturbing is that the FDA blindly accepted scientific research that was funded by Bayer into the effects of the Bayer seeds and approved its usage without an independent study or doing its own research. Similarly, the USDA is speeding up the approval process of newly genetically modified plants for the competitive advantage of companies like Monsanto and DuPont, possibly at the risk of the health of people and the ecosystem. Read more here.
What many supporters of genetically modified crops say, is that due to the modifications, we are able to grow more crops and have less losses due to pests. This is somewhat true, crop yields have risen but we may only be postponing the problem. The EPA has recently found that Monsanto's "roundup ready" corn has become inadequate in dealing with rootworm. The worms have evolved to be immune to the pesticide laden plants. Read more here.
Given that our food supply is dependent on these pollinators, and that the genetically modified crops are the likely cause of their decline, the higher crop yields may only be a temporary boon to our food supply issues. If the decline of insect pollinators continues, genetically modified crops will no longer be the answer to our food security. What should be happening is more laboratory testing of real world conditions to see the full ramifications of these genetic manipulations. But, what has happened is the influence of big business and the agriculture lobby in Washington has bypassed good science and rushed headlong into using an unproven technology, one that could have a devastating effect on the future of our food supply.
The reason for needing higher crop yields are obvious. We are an exploding population of 7 billion, with a projected 9 billion by 2060. We urgently need to curb our population growth. Nine billion people on this planet is not sustainable and continuing on this path will put unprecedented pressures on the environment and all of the living things that share this world with us. Industrialized and genetically modified farming is a byproduct of our overpopulation crisis. If we address the overpopulation issue, genetically engineering crops and producing stronger insecticides may not be necessary.
The ecosystem is a dependent web of interactions between organisms. One cannot expect to meddle with one thing (like genetically modifying crops or allowing human overpopulation) and expect that this will not have larger unforeseen consequences later on. We are not omniscient, we cannot possibly work out all of the variables in such a complex system such as the ecosystems on this planet. The best we can do is try to find a balance with our environment, our existence is dependent on it.
GM crops have been widely used in the United States since 1996 with corporations like Monsanto and Bayer leading the introduction of seeds to farmers that have been modified on the molecular level. This is not the traditional method of cross breading to form hybrid plant species. The new generation of genetic manipulation is done by taking genes from one plant that may not be even remotely similar to the crop plant and injecting it into the plant tissue of a seed or by infecting the seeds with a bacteria that carries the new DNA, stimulating the seed to accept the new genetic material.
The Monsanto seeds have also been treated with their special blend of herbicides and supplied to corn farmers in the United States mid-western region. These "round-up ready" seeds have been linked directly to the decline in monarch butterfly populations in the past fifteen years. Monarch butterflies are dependent on one type of plant to reproduce, the milkweed plant. They only lay their eggs on these plants, and their caterpillars only eat the leaves of these plants. The milkweed is vital to a healthy monarch butterfly population and until the late 1990's corn fields and the surrounding areas were abundant with milkweed. But, being a weed, this plant has nearly disappeared from the mid-western United States since these weed resistant crops were introduced, endangering the survival of the iconic monarch butterfly. Read more about these studies here.
Bayer has been supplying seeds to farmers infused with neonicotinoid pesticides so that the plant itself has a pesticide built into its vascular system. This pesticide stays with the plant even during pollination, which is lethal to pollinators such as bees and butterflies. During planting and pollination, neonicotinoid pesticide is released, bees carry the neonic-infused pollen back to their hives which damages their immune systems and homing abilities. This makes them more susceptible to mites which have long been suspected as being the culprit for the bee population decline. Read more about these new studies here.
What is particularly disturbing is that the FDA blindly accepted scientific research that was funded by Bayer into the effects of the Bayer seeds and approved its usage without an independent study or doing its own research. Similarly, the USDA is speeding up the approval process of newly genetically modified plants for the competitive advantage of companies like Monsanto and DuPont, possibly at the risk of the health of people and the ecosystem. Read more here.
What many supporters of genetically modified crops say, is that due to the modifications, we are able to grow more crops and have less losses due to pests. This is somewhat true, crop yields have risen but we may only be postponing the problem. The EPA has recently found that Monsanto's "roundup ready" corn has become inadequate in dealing with rootworm. The worms have evolved to be immune to the pesticide laden plants. Read more here.
Given that our food supply is dependent on these pollinators, and that the genetically modified crops are the likely cause of their decline, the higher crop yields may only be a temporary boon to our food supply issues. If the decline of insect pollinators continues, genetically modified crops will no longer be the answer to our food security. What should be happening is more laboratory testing of real world conditions to see the full ramifications of these genetic manipulations. But, what has happened is the influence of big business and the agriculture lobby in Washington has bypassed good science and rushed headlong into using an unproven technology, one that could have a devastating effect on the future of our food supply.
The reason for needing higher crop yields are obvious. We are an exploding population of 7 billion, with a projected 9 billion by 2060. We urgently need to curb our population growth. Nine billion people on this planet is not sustainable and continuing on this path will put unprecedented pressures on the environment and all of the living things that share this world with us. Industrialized and genetically modified farming is a byproduct of our overpopulation crisis. If we address the overpopulation issue, genetically engineering crops and producing stronger insecticides may not be necessary.
The ecosystem is a dependent web of interactions between organisms. One cannot expect to meddle with one thing (like genetically modifying crops or allowing human overpopulation) and expect that this will not have larger unforeseen consequences later on. We are not omniscient, we cannot possibly work out all of the variables in such a complex system such as the ecosystems on this planet. The best we can do is try to find a balance with our environment, our existence is dependent on it.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Animal slavery
I have previously discussed the issues of animal abuse and the enslavement of animals but only from the intrinsic point of view - namely that their incarceration impedes their natural development, behavior and in some cases even facilitates their extinction.
This is a moral argument based purely on what is right. We should consider our actions before, during and after we commit them. To weigh all the information and not merely act on our appetites or justify these appetites with sophistry. Plato and Socrates both argued against the belief that "might makes right" - that just because we can do something does not mean we should. The belief in "might makes right" usually ends with an abuse of power whether it is directed toward other fellow humans or animals.
What has recently surfaced, is another equally powerful argument against animal imprisonment, based on the law. In October 2011, PETA accompanied by marine biologists and former orca trainers, filed a lawsuit against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. and SeaWorld LLC. The lawsuit asks a federal court to find the capture of five wild orcas (killer whales) and their subsequent use as performance animals to be unconstitutional under the 13th amendment of the constitution. This is a landmark case as it is the first lawsuit to challenge animal captivity as being in violation of anti-slavery laws.
The 13th amendment was ratified after the civil war making slavery and involuntary servitude unconstitutional and illegal. Article XIII states:
It is an interesting argument, as there are many parallels between the slavery of the past and the current non-human slavery that is prevalent today. First, this case is arguing that wild animals should not be forcefully removed from their natural environment and forced into involuntary servitude, in this case as entertainment for people. This is originally how human slavery began in the United States. People were forcefully removed from their native lands in Africa and bought in the U.S. to perform involuntary servitude through threats of violence and their lives. These people were separated from families, abused and made to perform hard labor against their will. They were prevented from actualizing their potential.
Second, These orcas are not viewed as living, breathing beings. To their captors, they are "property" this is reminiscent of the 19th century arguments for the continuation of slavery. Slaves were not considered people, but property which the owner could treat how they saw fit. This is exactly how non-human animals are treated today, as tools or property.
These orcas who were wild, then caught and made to perform for entertainment, forced to live in small tanks, live in unnatural environments that curtail their physical and mental well being and are subjected to artificial insemination for the benefit of their captors - the concern is that these conditions are against their will, which is the basic definition of slavery. These highly intelligent creatures are not given the choice between freedom or servitude, they are forced into an unnatural existence.
Please contact the company that owns Sea World and let them know you do not support slavery in any form and their actions toward animals must cease. For more information on the court case filed on behalf of the orcas of Sea World go here.
As always, our collective voices can make change happen. We can also elect not to support practices we do not agree with by not patronizing companies that act immorally.
This is a moral argument based purely on what is right. We should consider our actions before, during and after we commit them. To weigh all the information and not merely act on our appetites or justify these appetites with sophistry. Plato and Socrates both argued against the belief that "might makes right" - that just because we can do something does not mean we should. The belief in "might makes right" usually ends with an abuse of power whether it is directed toward other fellow humans or animals.
What has recently surfaced, is another equally powerful argument against animal imprisonment, based on the law. In October 2011, PETA accompanied by marine biologists and former orca trainers, filed a lawsuit against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. and SeaWorld LLC. The lawsuit asks a federal court to find the capture of five wild orcas (killer whales) and their subsequent use as performance animals to be unconstitutional under the 13th amendment of the constitution. This is a landmark case as it is the first lawsuit to challenge animal captivity as being in violation of anti-slavery laws.
The 13th amendment was ratified after the civil war making slavery and involuntary servitude unconstitutional and illegal. Article XIII states:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.As you can see, the amendment, like most of the constitution, is broad and for good reason. The authors of the constitution, the bill of rights and many of the amendments wanted this document to be flexible enough to change with the inevitable change that comes with progress. This amendment makes no specific mention of humans or people, and it is because of this the lawsuit can be filed.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
It is an interesting argument, as there are many parallels between the slavery of the past and the current non-human slavery that is prevalent today. First, this case is arguing that wild animals should not be forcefully removed from their natural environment and forced into involuntary servitude, in this case as entertainment for people. This is originally how human slavery began in the United States. People were forcefully removed from their native lands in Africa and bought in the U.S. to perform involuntary servitude through threats of violence and their lives. These people were separated from families, abused and made to perform hard labor against their will. They were prevented from actualizing their potential.
Second, These orcas are not viewed as living, breathing beings. To their captors, they are "property" this is reminiscent of the 19th century arguments for the continuation of slavery. Slaves were not considered people, but property which the owner could treat how they saw fit. This is exactly how non-human animals are treated today, as tools or property.
These orcas who were wild, then caught and made to perform for entertainment, forced to live in small tanks, live in unnatural environments that curtail their physical and mental well being and are subjected to artificial insemination for the benefit of their captors - the concern is that these conditions are against their will, which is the basic definition of slavery. These highly intelligent creatures are not given the choice between freedom or servitude, they are forced into an unnatural existence.
Please contact the company that owns Sea World and let them know you do not support slavery in any form and their actions toward animals must cease. For more information on the court case filed on behalf of the orcas of Sea World go here.
As always, our collective voices can make change happen. We can also elect not to support practices we do not agree with by not patronizing companies that act immorally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)