Tag Archives: Carbon Footprint

Global Awareness about Clean Energy Sources

Posted on by
5

For this paper, I focused on the use of clean and affordable energy sources as one of the global goals in the Mathematics, Sustainability, and Global Learning unit. I found this an incredibly useful topic to focus in on due to the fact that it is such a needed topic for people to know more about and for them to utilize in their every day lives.

Throughout this course, we have talked a great deal about the importance of utilizing renewable resources to create the energy we need for our everyday lives. However, the reason I am now choosing to focus in on the “awareness” aspect of the paper is because I feel as though this is not fully known to so much of our planet. The United States has one of the larger carbon footprints when compared to other countries, showing that we are in overshoot and are not living a sustainable lifestyles. With this in mind, it is impossible to imagine that our planet will be able to survive if we keep up these actions. For this reason, I think awareness of alternative, and clean energy sources is an incredibly needed tactic in order to help save our planet and move towards a more sustainable lifestyle, in which we utilize other forms of energy.

Mathematics, Sustainability, and Global Learning

Posted on by
3

I honestly think certain issues are best understood through specific, smaller-scale examples.

For instance, there’s the broad issue of global warming and climate change and human use of fossil fuels and all the corresponding problems that arise as a result. Yet instead of trying to tackle the issue broadly, I think it best to start small and work your way up. Which is why my paper focused on the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia, a relationship centered almost entirely around 2 fundamental, core values: cheap oil and defensive guarantees.

For too long, in fact since the end of World War II, the United States of America has guaranteed Saudi national security and defense in exchange for a reliable supply of cheap oil supplies. We have overlooked Saudi offenses and atrocities time and time again, to the detriment of our own values and the sacrifice of American lives.

The issue, of course, is U.S. reliance on Saudi oil supplies. On a daily basis, Saudi oil supplies represent roughly 5% of U.S. oil consumption (U.S.E.I.A.).  Obviously, this dependence results in an unwillingness to abandon Saudi Arabia’s record of abuse in favor of what we believe.

As a result, we sacrifice our own values as well as the present and future of our environment in order to maintain the status quo. Clearly, this trade-off is unsustainable to say the least. It requires necessary and immediate change, in both U.S. energy and foreign policy.

Green Fee Idea

Posted on by
4

I think a great way that this school could manage and lower the carbon footprint of the students could be to lower the amount of meat products offered in the dining halls. After learning that the amount of water and natural resources needed to produce meat products for people to consume is unbelievably high, I realized that cutting back on meat would make a very large impact on our environment. For this reason, I think the school would benefit from using $25,000 to offer more vegetarian options and perhaps some meals on some days without meat at all. The school could use the money to invest in other protein sources, such as tofu and bean products, so that students are still attaining protein in their diet, minus the environmental impact.

Food Scraps as Fuel

Posted on by
4

In 1879 Sir Charles Chamberland invented the autoclave which was later used to develop a waste autoclave which was later used to develop today’s organic waste converter.  Here’s how an organic waste generator works: 1) Organic waste (food scraps, mulch, firewood, biosolids, etc.) is superheated then 2) moisture is released from the heating of these materials which acts like steam and the 3) steam is used for power generation.

Organic waste converter technology is a sustainable alternative to traditional methods of waste disposal such as incineration and landfill dumping which have destructive effects on our environment.  Not only do organic waste converters reduce our carbon footprint and avoid polluting emissions, but they also result in a usable end product known as biofuel, soil compost, or building material (if mixture contains wood/garden scraps).  Organic waste converters vary in size; they are used in households to fuel a car or they are used in large corporations such as hospitals, which generate huge amounts of food scraps and biosolids, who then use the steam to generate electricity for the facility.  There is a large push in the U.S. to construct on-site organic waste converters in supermarkets.  Supermarkets throughout Europe have already implemented this technology and results have shown that there are massive decreases in electricity costs, waste disposal costs and carbon dioxide emissions.  Green technology is the ability of modern converters to transfer mechanical energy and friction force on the waste mass into heat energy that is used in the pasteurization and sterilization processes.  In the future we should look forward to seeing more green technology integrated into our daily life.

Carbon Emission Intensity of Economies

Posted on by
4

Historically, economic growth has been linked to CO2 emissions.  Although countries who obtain differing levels of per capita CO2 emissions can still have similar gross domestic product per capita levels, these differences occur due to the differences in the CO2 intensities of these economies.  The article on Our World In Data explains that CO2 intensity measures the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of GDP. There are two key factors which affect the CO2 intensity of an economy; energy efficiency, and carbon efficiency.  Both factors simultaneously work together, because as efficiency improves in both energy and carbon usage, the CO2 emitted per unit of energy will fall.

The graph provided in the article shows CO2 intensity from 1990 to 2013 as a linear downward trend.  The CO2 intensity rates have been steadily falling since 1990. This can be considered a result of improved energy/technology efficiency, and increased capacity of renewables.

According to the graph, over the 23 year period between 1990 and 2013;

Total Change: -0.12kg

Decay Factor: (0.47kg/0.35kg)=0.74

Percentage change: (1-0.74)=.26= 26% decrease

 

Source: CO₂ and other Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Our World in Data 

Unilever’s Sustainability Report

Posted on by
4

The huge corporation, Unilever, whose company mission statement states, “We meet everyday needs for nutrition, hygiene and personal car with brands that help people feel good, look good and get more out of life” started a sustainability campaign in 2010 due to increased distaste from the public with regard to Unilever products.  Every year the company conducts a “Sustainable Living Plan” progress report and in the first year of the campaign the company’s greenhouse gas intensity fell 16% from 118.31 to 99.97 kg per metric ton of production, as seen in the pie chart.  According to this chart which was included in the progress report the highest amount of greenhouse gas emission comes from customer use of soaps, shampoos and shower gels.  As of 2018 the company has set a target to double its business while halving the environmental footprint of its products across the value chain, and sourcing 100% of agricultural raw materials sustainably, all by 2020.  This goal was set in 2010 so the 2020 goal seemed lightyears away but with 2020 right around the corner, data analysts have criticized Unilever for not providing the whole picture with regard to their sustainability progress.  Specifically in the 2011-2012 progress report there was no data to back up this chart, there was only the chart.  On the Unilever website, the company claims that that it is on-plan for every individual sustainable sourcing target thus far.  I suppose we’ll find out in two years.

American Isn’t the Biggest Problem

Posted on by
3

In this article, it is discussed how many different countries, other than America, are found to be incredible dangerous when it comes to littering and keep trash off of the streets and oceans. When people tend to think of Global Warming and littering issues, they tend to only think of what they can do in their own country, and for the most part, this seems to be talked about in America.

I think an important part of this process, if we as humans are really trying to make a difference on our environment, would be to educate other countries about the dangerous of littering as well. As shown in the chart taken from this article, other countries such as China and Indonesia are struggling immensely when it comes to trash issues.

I would argue that we are not actually making an impact on the environment as a whole if we do not take a step back and make sure we are educating the whole world, not just our country. 

Bottled Water at Union

Posted on by
5

I used to be a bottled water guy. It was always cold, and guaranteed to be clean.

It was simple. When I was thirsty, I got a bottle of water. Drink, dehydrate over the course of a few hours, repeat. Though it varied from day to day, I would estimate I used to drink about 5-6, 16.9 fl oz. bottles of water every day. For those of us who like to try to show our mathematical prowess by completing simple equations, that’s 84.5-101.4 fl oz. of water a day.

Which, in the grander scheme of things, is roughly the suggested intake of water on a daily basis (currently 91 fl oz.). Yet, I was wasting all the plastic that had to contain that water, one plastic bottle at a time. I stopped drinking bottled water when I started actively trying to reduce my carbon footprint. I bought a reusable bottle, and I fill it up periodically from a fountain.

But in the case of the broader Union community, I see people with bottled water all the time. As I sit here writing, I count 4 people around me with plastic bottled water in some form or another. And I didn’t even count a fifth, who has a cardboard box of water, which proclaims itself to be “better” because “Boxed Water is Better”.

Let’s assume the average Union student drinks the suggested daily value of water, and Union has roughly 2,200 undergrad students. Let’s say half (being generous) consume bottled water while the other half consumes water more responsibly.

(1/2) x (2,200)=(1,110)…(1,110) x (5.5)=(6,105)

Following this logic, Union’s student body on a daily basis consumes over 6,000 bottles of water. That’s a staggering number. Even more staggering: the sheer cost of producing so many bottles of water.

According to a February 2007 Pacific Institute Report: “Bottling water produced more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide…It took 3 liters of water to produce 1 liter of bottled water.”

This is, of course, not to mention what happens to these 6,000+ bottles of water afterwards. Are any re-used? What percentage are even recycled?

Drinking water should begin follow the same tagline as their counterparts in the alcohol industry.

Drink Responsibly.

 

Carbon Dioxide and developing countries

Posted on by
4

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.