Are Craft Breweries Part of the Answer in Reducing Waste Water

We spend the majority of our year on the Union College campus, so it would be insane to assume that every single one of us remains unaware of the massive number of cases of beer consumed per weekend here. However, the amount of water used, and wasted, to produce such a college staple might surprise many of us. In an article by Justin Solomon for CNBC in which it is revealed that five barrels of water go into every barrel of beer made by MillerCoors. In a full barrel there is, approximately, thirty one gallons of beer. So that would mean that one hundred and fifty five gallons of water go into producing 31 gallons of beer, and these, reportedly, were the companies more water conscious numbers. Good, but not great.

Now we have a possible solution to all of the unnecessary water waste coming out of an, honestly, unnecessary product. An article by Cassandra Profita for NPR reporting that some small craft breweries in Oregon, the Portland area, have been assembled to use a form of highly treated, “high purity” wastewater produced by a Oregon water treatment facility. The facility, Clean Water Services of Hillsboro, has reportedly developed technology that can treat sewage to a point where it is safe for human consumption. The technology involves a three step system of ultra filtration, reverse osmosis, and enhanced oxidization. In order to get that ball rolling they enlisted thirteen local brewers in a competition to make beer using the treated wastewater, after being approved by the state of Oregon as a safe practice. The purified water that was used in the competition was thirty percent treated and filtered wastewater, but the ultimate goal for the company is to have brewers using one hundred percent recycled wastewater.

The goal for this experiment, and a healthy lesson for us all to learn, is that people need to come to terms with using recycled water for everyday activities before a major draught forces them to do so. Beer is by no means a necessity, but somehow it seems easier to approach major issues (like water management) through the means of something unnecessary. Sometimes, those are where the best answers are found.

Carbon Dioxide and developing countries

Climate change caused by elevated carbon dioxide emissions takes its toll everywhere around the globe. However, not every country contributes to carbon dioxide emissions as much as others do, and not all countries are affected by climate change equally. Articles posted by the Center for Global Development look at how developed and developing countries differ responsibility for climate change. Historically, developed countries have been responsible for well over 50% of carbon dioxide emissions globally. There is, of course, a relationship between growing infrastructure and industry and  carbon dioxide emissions. However, there are exceptions. In 2014 England’s economy grew by 2.6% and their carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by 8.4%. Although some developed countries now are seeing economic growth and decreases in carbon emissions simultaneously, this is rarely the case for developing countries.  There is also a greater cost for climate change on developing countries than on developed countries. More tropical storms and less access to resources take a financial toll on developed countries. While the increase in industry and infrastructure in developing countries may be a good sign for economic growth, it is not beneficial to the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. One huge contributor to carbon dioxide emissions is deforestation, which was responsible for one-third of sub-Sahara Africa’s carbon emissions. Finding a balance between economic growth and reducing our carbon footprint is difficult to achieve, but is important in working towards the advancement of developing countries while being ecologically thoughtful.

Agriculture and Climate Change

Agriculture has been the main means of survival for humans for centuries. The age of hunter-gatherers is ancient history. Societies all over the globe have been built and destroyed over the resources that are yielded due to the development of agriculture and agricultural technology. Because agriculture involves utilizing a small area relative to the number of crops grown or livestock raised on it, it means that farmers and ranchers are able to produce a high volume of what they are producing in a concentrated area. However, the world has been facing an agricultural crisis in the last millennium due to exponential population growth and a vast reduction in arable farmland. This means that the demand for milk, eggs, crops, meat, etc.. is rising, but the area in which these resources are produced is shrinking. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social affairs reported a projection that the world population will reach 9.7 billion people by the year 2050. But what does that mean for the future of agriculture? Well, modern scientists have already started to come up with solutions to these issues; many of which may sound familiar. Factory farming, genetically modified foods, pesticides and artificial growth hormone and antibiotic cocktails for animals are only a few ways that agriculture has been permeated by modern technology. Unfortunately, many of these technological ‘advances’ have been catastrophic for the earth. Factory farms produce incredible amounts of CO2 and CH4 and they pollute soil, ground water and air quality. The sick animals that they raise on artificial hormones and antibiotics are then fed to humans which makes us, by default, sicker as well. The plants, such as soybeans, produced by companies like Monsanto, are so altered and sprayed with chemicals that they are de facto stripped of their nutritional value.

In the same UN/DESA study, it is projected that the yield of staple grains like wheat and corn will decrease by 50% due to the effects of global warming. Imagine that: 35 years from now, we will probably have only half the number of grains and corn that we have now because of climate change. Less arable land means fewer farms, which leads to higher prices and lower production. Agriculture, and the deforestation that is needed to create farmland, is responsible for 1/5th or 21% of all CO2 emissions in the world, between 2000 and 2010. The total estimate of CO2 emissions from agriculture in this decade was approximately 44 billion metric tonnes. Anthropic climate change is killing agriculture, but the deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions from farms is one of the single largest causes of climate change in the world. So is agriculture good or bad? The simple answer is both or neither, whichever way you choose to look at it.

You can read the whole article here.

The Wealth Gap & CO2 Emissions

In the “What if only 100 people existed on earth?” video, the narrator started to discuss how the distribution of wealth is not only not well dispersed, but highlights that the top 1% (with an annual income of over $1 million) of the global population owns 50% of the global wealth. This kind of spending power resting on the shoulders, or should I say the wallets, of such few individuals really peaked my interest.

On further research I found that there is an interesting mathematical correlation between a state/country’s state of income inequality and their “aggregate rate of emissions is an increasing function of of mean income and that any inequality-reducing redistribution of income will increase the aggregate rate of emissions” (655). This research actually discusses an equation that proves this point:

I found it very interesting that there is actually a Y variable in the above formula to represent an inequality constant that is used in calculating the average rate of emissions.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Increases

In reading an article from the Scientific American, I have learned that for the past five years, Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased at a rate of at least 2 parts per million, which is an “all time high” according to author Scott Waldman. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been keeping a close watch on increasing Carbon Dioxide atmospheric levels due to the intense environmental threat increases in CO2 levels pose. Pieter Tans is a lead scientist at the NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network, and he is especially concerned at the rate of the increases of CO2 in our atmosphere, “The rate of CO2 growth over the last decade is 100 to 200 times faster than what the Earth experienced during the transition from the last ice age,” Tans said. “This is a real shock to the atmosphere” (Waldman 2017). Why the concern? High levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere can cause sea levels to rise, increase the existence of droughts, extreme weather including hurricanes, blizzards, and more. Outside of this article, I see my own concerns for rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere. A direct impact on all living things on this planet by the extreme weather is our ability to grow food. As the environment changes and becomes more hostile, it is also much more difficult for agricultural endeavors to thrive. This will end up causing food shortages and disastrous effects on all living creatures as well as the economy. Action must be taken to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions and Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere so that life can continue to thrive on Earth.

Link to article here.

 

Progress & Natural Resources

Today we live in large industrial world that depends heavily on the extraction of natural resources and its mass consumption. Through technological development, nations can thrive in the economic field when exporting natural resources but there are negative factors that hurt the atmosphere. In the U.S. 60% of americas live in high polluted areas, with rising high levels of natural resource consumptions. The levels of pollution in the world is rising and the U.S. is in the middle of the development.

In the reading by the Union of Concerned  Scientists, concluded that every 10,000 U.S. homes powered with with natural gas instead of coal avoids the annual emissions of 1,900 tons of NOx, 3,900 tons of SO2, and 5,200 tons of particulates. There are renewable energy that is present and can be used by governments and private industries, but the business aspects of natural resources creates a challenge switching energy consumptions methods.

The removal of natural resources from the environment often creates bad living conditions for locals to to make a living. Many countries in Latin America are suffering from the exploitation from corporations that remove the natural resources without concern for the negative effects. Latin America is responsible for 974.6 million metric tons of CO2 emissions from fuel combustion, with high rates in the manufacturing, and transporting sectors. They are responsible for a large factor of the rise in pollution because of the exploitation of the natural resources.

Countries like Brazil that are abundant in nature resources tends to have high rates of air pollution due to its industrialization. The cost of air pollution to the health sector is estimated to be more than $670 million and causes more than 4,000 premature deaths each year. The negative effects of pollution are continually increasing but the solution is alternative energies, which are slowly being implemented into society.