When looking at a worldwide problem, it seems nearly impossible to stop yourself from asking, “But what can one person’s actions really achieve? Am I really going to make that much of a difference?”
When it comes to using plastics, the answer is always yes.
Take plastic bags for example: The average family in the United States accumulates around 60 plastic bags in a mere four trips to the grocery store. If that family went to the grocery store four times a month and made even one simple change – to bring their own bags – they would save over 700 plastic bags each year.
One of the simplest ways to reduce the impact of plastic pollution is to stop using plastic bags. Each year, 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags are consumed globally and only roughly 1 in 200 gets recycled.
Plastic bags take anywhere from 10-1,000 years to degrade by breaking into smaller and smaller pieces, building up in the natural environment, affecting wildlife, habitats, and human populations.
And aside from being non-biodegradable, plastic bags are a nuisance both in the environment and in the home—floating in the ocean, being eaten by wild and domestic animals, clogging drainage systems, and penetrating agricultural soil. By reducing your plastic bag use, you’re practicing a more cyclical lifestyle that not only reduces waste, but saves money and resources in the long run.
This may seem like an unrealistic goal for the average individual, but it doesn’t have to be! There are several steps that you can take to reduce your plastic bag use and eventually stop using plastic bags entirely.
Be aware. First, simply realize how many plastic bags you use throughout any given day; per week; per month. The first step in changing a habit is to recognize it in the first place. Start paying attention to how often you use plastic bags, how quickly you discard them, and in what circumstances you could go without one.
Decline the bag. Once you’re actively noticing your bag usage, start putting it into practice. Decline the bag! Buying one or two items at the grocery store? Opt to carry them out of the store in your hands, rather than using a plastic bag. See if the store has paper alternatives. Decline the plastic bag you’re offered for your carry-out containers. By simply pausing to consider the necessity of the bag you’re offered, you can begin to reduce your plastic bag use.
Recycle, recycle, recycle. Opt to either recycle your plastic bags at home, or try to return them to the store you received them from. If plastics are going to be in circulation, the best case scenario is that they are recycled into other usable materials.
Reuse. Notice you’ve been collecting a lot of plastic bags lately? Reuse them. Plastic bags can be used throughout the house as small bin liners, to hold other recycling, or on your next grocery trip.
Use reusable bags. What better way to reduce your plastic bag use than to stop using them? There are so many alternatives to plastic bags that can be used over and over again. Cotton, durable plastic, jute—Just to name a few. There are a variety of options out there for each individual. Find the right reusable bag for you and carry it with you, leave it in your car, or bring it to work, so that it’s on-hand when you need it.
Bring your own produce bags. Even when you bring your own bag to the grocery store, it seems nearly impossible to avoid plastic bags in the produce aisle. One of the best ways to stop using plastic bags entirely in the grocery store is to bring your own reusable produce bags.
Stop using plastic bin liners. A common household offender that often gets overlooked is the garbage bin liner. Each plastic bin liner goes directly into the landfill once it leaves your doorstep. An easy way to avoid this is to buy biodegradable bin liners, or opt to use newspaper to line your bins.
Educate and act! Look into recycling options in your community. Seek alternatives to other plastic items you use in your household. Ask your local grocer or shopping mall to start carrying more eco-friendly alternatives. Petition your local congressman to ban, tax, or create deposit schemes for your city or state. Tell a friend.
Plastic pollution is becoming more and more of an overwhelming problem, and it’s become obvious that action must be taken to solve it. Single-use plastics, like plastic bags, are some of the most prevalent and preventable pollutants, making them priority number one for individuals, businesses, and governments all over the world.
Reducing your plastic bag use is not only manageable, but also one of the most perceptible changes you can make to your lifestyle, making it an easy target for change. Try some, or all, of these tips and challenge yourself to stop using plastic bags altogether. As you begin to do so, see how quickly your kitchen cabinet becomes uncluttered, your trash less full, and your footprint smaller.
Before answering any questions it’s important to understand why this is even a debate. Varying opinions on whether disposable cups are worse or better for the environment than reusable alternatives stem from unfair comparisons.
A few reasons why people may be comparing apples to oranges:
Types – different types of disposable cups (paper, plastic, styrofoam) have varying impacts. Likewise, so do their reusable counterparts. This makes it difficult to make blanket statements like “all disposable cups are worse than reusable alternatives”
Focus – you can paint a different picture depending on which aspect of environmental impact you’re focusing on. Energy use, natural resource use, pollution, and emissions, are just a few of the different areas you can compare. To be fair, you have to consider the complete environmental impact of disposable vs reusable, not just one aspect.
Other – Other variables such as the technology used to manufacture the cup or how long it traveled to get the place of sale also change the environmental impact.
The Key Indicators of Environmental Impact
There are several variables to compare when it comes to rating the overall environmental impact of a product. Here are the main 3 areas and some of the considerations of each:
Production – What it takes to make the product
Input of energy and natural resources
Transportation of raw materials and finished product
Emissions and other pollutants from manufacturing
Use – How use of the product impacts humans or the environment
Impact on human health
Lifespan of the product
Environmental impact of use (if any) – example: washing of reusable cups
Post Use – How disposal of the product impacts the environment
Pollution of natural environment
Emissions from disposal (gasses from breakdown in landfill or incineration)
Cost of recycling
The total impact of a product can be calculated using our simplified formula:
Total Environmental Impact = Cost of Production + Cost of Use + Cost of Post Use
The Key Performance Indicators
There are also several different types of environmental impact. The most common types and the causes they are linked to include:
Emissions – global warming, air pollution
Natural Resource Use – deforestation, biodiversity loss, global warming
Pollution – biodiversity loss, degradation of natural environment
Some people may weight one factor as more important than another depending on their opinions of which environmental issue is most pressing.
The most common comparison for environmental impact is energy used to create, distribute, and dispose of the product.
Energy input is considered to be the primary indicator of environmental impact because it is tied to almost all other factors. It takes natural resources such as coal to create energy and once burned it contributes to emissions that fuel global warming.
In this comparison of disposable vs reusable cups I will draw from several studies about energy use in each phase: production, use, and post use.
It’s important to note that there are other considerations when buying a product such as the social responsibility of the company producing it. I’ll touch on these considerations in my summary.
Cost of Production
In general, producing one disposable cup has a lower environmental impact than producing one reusable cup or bottle.
Measurement of Energy Input Needed (kJ/Cup) to Produce 1 Unit:
Producing a styrofoam or paper cup requires much less energy input than reusable alternatives such as plastic, glass, or ceramic.
This probably isn’t a big surprise to you. Disposable cups are smaller, lighter, and easier to make, while their counterparts require more input of resources and energy.
Proponents of single use cups may stop here and claim that disposables are more energy efficient and therefore more environmentally friendly. But the most critical evaluation happens in the next two phases: Use and Post Use.
In general, when comparing 1 cup to 1 reusable cup, the production of disposable cups is in fact more eco friendly.
Cost of Use
It’s clear that the production of one disposable cup has a lower impact than one reusable alternative. But if you use over 300 disposables in a year, doesn’t that add up to be a greater impact than using only one reusable cup?
To calculate and compare the average cost of use for disposable cups vs reusables we have to answer one key question:
How many disposables are equal to the continued use of one reusable alternative?
The quick answer: this number ranges from 6 to 127 depending on various factors such as the type of reusable cup and how it is used.
Key Considerations – Washing Cups
A key factor in this aspect of the environmental impact of disposable vs reusable comes down to washing.
While disposables have no energy input necessary for their use, reusables do. In order to continue reusing a glass, plastic, or ceramic cup it needs to be washed which will contribute to its overall environmental impact.
Of course, there are different ways to wash cups and some are more eco friendly than others.
In general, washing by hand is more energy efficient than using a dishwasher. And washing with cold water is more energy efficient than washing with hot water.
The safest estimate to use is the energy use of a common household dishwasher.
Cost of Use: Summary
Considering the energy input to produce and to wash we can calculate a “break even” point, where using a reusable cup becomes as efficient as using a disposable cup.
The formula:
Break even number of uses = (Energy of Reusable cup)/(Energy of Disposable cup – Energy of wash)
The results:
Main Takeaways
Glass and plastic are the most energy efficient materials for reusable cups
When replacing paper cups it takes less than 20 uses to become more efficient
When replacing styrofoam cups (because energy input for this type is so low) it takes up to 127 uses
Most comparisons of disposable vs reusable cups end here. Although we’ve already determined that reusable cups are more eco friendly after continued use, we still don’t have the whole story.
What if all disposable cups are recycled and their materials are used over and over again?
We need to consider the environmental impact of disposal to have a complete understanding of how disposables stack up to reusables.
Cost of Disposal (post use)
The main factor to consider in disposal is how often cups are disposed of and how. Are they recyclable? What’s the impact of recycling them, sending them to the landfill, or other outcomes?
Are disposables recyclable?
Disposable cups are disposed of in mass and the most common type, used for coffee, are difficult to recycle. The vast majority of paper cups we use daily for takeaway drinks have a plastic lining in them that prevents to paper cup from becoming saturated and falling apart.
This plastic lining must be separated from the paper in the recycling process which makes recycling them difficult and costly. In fact, most recycling centers are not equipped to process them.
The result: Unfortunately right now only about 1% of disposable cups are recycled.
What is the cost of disposing single use cups?
It’s difficult to calculate the cost of disposing single use cups because of various scenarios. However, we should consider the following:
Collecting and transporting used cups is energy intensive (think trash trucks)
Once in a landfill cups may breakdown slowly in the right conditions but their plastics will take hundreds of years resulting in landfills that are wastelands
Greenhouse gas release from landfills is a major contributor to global warming
Cups that don’t make it to landfills pollute the natural environment
Incinerating disposable waste will recoup some of the energy but also results in emissions that contribute to global warming and air pollution
The sheer volume of disposable cups thrown away on a daily basis is hard to fathom (Starbucks alone produces 4 Billion each year)
How do reusables stack up?
Ceramic Cups – very little to no recycle potential but can last to thousands of uses if cared for and has little to no environmental impact in landfills
Plastic Alternatives – Many plastic alternatives can be recycled and will last for thousands of uses
Glass Cups – Can be recycled, will last for thousands of uses, and has little to no negative environmental impact in landfills
The bottom line
Reusable cups have a longer lifespan so their overall disposal impact is much lower than single use cups.
Most reusable cups can be recycled. Glass and ceramic are less of a threat to the natural environment because they will break down over time and do not contain synthetic chemicals, unlike styrofoam or the plastic lining of paper cups which do not biodegrade.
Disposal of single use cups poses other threats such as the cost of waste collection and the accumulation of these products in our oceans, when they are not taken to the landfill or incinerated.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF SINGLE USE VS REUSABLE
While it takes more energy to produce reusable cups, because they have a longer lifespan their overall environmental impact is much less than disposable cups.
Each type of disposable and reusable cup has its own variations in its impact on the environment. Some are better than others.
In general, the number of uses needed for a reusable bottle to be more eco friendly ranges from 6 to 127.
Reusable Options Overview
Glass cups are the best alternative. If you’re foregoing paper coffee cups by using a glass mug, you can be having a positive environmental impact in as few as 6 uses.
Reusable plastic cups are close behind glass. The break even point for reusable plastic cups can be as low as 7 uses.
Ceramic cups are also a good alternative but it will take more uses for them to become more environmentally friendly than disposable cups (as few as 15).
Disposable Options Overview: Plastic Cups vs. Paper Cups
If you need to use a disposable cup, you’re often left to choose between paper and plastic cups. As we discussed above, there are many factors that determine the true environmental impacts of each type of cup.
Paper cups can biodegrade. This lowers their environmental impact, as they breakdown over time, while plastic cups sit in landfills for years. However, the carbon footprint of paper cups is higher than plastic cups, and uses more energy to produce.
Plastic cups (especially Styrofoam cups, a type of plastic) do not biodegrade, but has a lower carbon footprint and uses less energy than a paper cup to produce.
Another disposable cup option is the reusable aluminum cup, which can be recycled over and over again, and is typically made with more recycled content than paper or plastic cups. However, aluminum production releases a large amount of greenhouses gases and waste.
Ultimately, there is no clear winner among disposable cups, as the biodegradability of paper cups is mitigated by the high energy costs to produce them.
While reusing glass cups is ultimately the most environmentally sound option, the best option for disposable cups is one made from recycled materials, which are environmentally beneficial as they use less raw material to produce.
Main Takeaway
When assessing the sustainability of disposable cups vs reusables, it’s clear that reusables are more eco friendly when used repeatedly.
Although the impact of the production of single use cups is lower than reusables, the impact of their use and disposal is much higher.
Every use of a reusable cup is one sip closer to a more sustainable world.
Insightful news about the world’s growing plastic pollution problem, delivered to your inbox – free – every Monday.
“This is where I get my news.” – Ken Cook, founder, Environmental Working Group
#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; }
/* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block.
We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */
It seems we are hearing about plastic a lot these days. The environmental impact of disposable bags, the nearly 20 billion pounds of plastic entering our oceans each year, the rising amount of sea life whose lives are endangered from plastic – The list goes on and on.
But just how pervasive is this plastic problem? New research has found evidence of plastic pollution ranging from the deepest depths of the ocean all the way up to the remote Swiss mountains. Our plastic problem is, in all actuality, all around us.
Scientists have begun extensive research into plastics and their effect on the environment, and their research is becoming truly alarming. The most recent findings take us all the way down to the Mariana Trench, up through Point Nemo, the most remote point in the ocean, to the nature reserves of the Swiss mountains.
Over 10,000 m below sea level lies the Mariana Trench. Located just east of the Philippines, the Mariana Trench is the deepest section of the world’s oceans. A study published by the Global Oceanographic Data Center (GODAC) in Japan in April 2018 documented single-use plastic debris found in the trench as early as 1998.
The study also found that 92% of the plastic analyzed at depths greater than 6,000 m were made up of single-use plastics. Scientists claim to have found more chemical pollutants in parts of the Mariana Trench than some of China’s most polluted waterways, and as much as 17% of the debris was found with at least one organism – entangled, covered, or “attached”.
Another remote ocean area, Point Nemo, was discovered to have up to 27 microplastic particles per cubic meter. Point Nemo is nearly 1,700 miles from an inhabited island and deemed the “oceanic pole of inaccessibility”, yet plastics have seemed to find their way there.
And lastly, a study conducted by the Geographic Society of the University of Bern found that even in the most remote, unsettled mountain areas of Switzerland, whose recycling rate is nearly 100%, microplastics still pervade. Of the 29 floodplains studied, 90% of the soils contained microplastics, evidence of wind transport of plastic particles.
Evidence from this study has spurred even further research into microplastics, with increased concern with traces of plastic in soil, domestic livestock, and even agriculture.
It is becoming more and more apparent through studies such as these that action against plastic needs to happen immediately.
The extent of our plastic problem continues to expand and public concern is continuing to rise. There are many plastic alternatives out there to substitute for single-use plastics and regulation is continuing to expand, including the EU and the U.K.’s strategies to cut plastic pollution.
However, much and more needs to be done if we are to truly remedy the permeating and ubiquitous presence of plastic around the world.
In the late 1980’s, large islands of floating trash seen by satellites were reported in the global news. Swirls of trash concentrated by the movement of the oceans’ gyres gave another hint to the then naïve public that our planet is finite after all. The world population—as of early 2018—is estimated at 7.6 billion; all contributing waste and debris to some extent.
Only one hundred years ago—when the world population had not yet reached 2 billion—trash was at worst unsightly or smelly but it was relatively harmless. Back then it eventually degraded and was not ultimately toxic to life.
In the early 1900’s, the first synthetic plastics were invented, giving way to the “plastic revolution”. As we found more uses for these new lightweight, cheap, and strong wonder materials, plastics rapidly found their way into most industries.
Today, plastics are a part of our daily lives and their prevalence can be a little overwhelming, especially when we are not welcoming them.
Our natural areas, waterways, and oceans have been polluted by plastic waste at an alarming level. It is at such an extent that gyres of plastic can be seen from space! It’s estimated that every square mile of ocean contains around 46,000 pieces of floating plastic.
While plastic debris is an eyesore and a threat to wildlife, the majority of the trash in the ocean is not even visible and poses its own threats.
A large portion of the plastic in the oceans is microplastics, composed of synthetic plastic particles so small they can barely be seen with the naked eye. The minute debris is so small and often suspended under the surface, making it invisible to satellites or even from the deck of a passing ship.
Microplastic pollution comes from countless sources, most prominently from cosmetic and household products, synthetic clothing fibers and industrial abrasives. Microplastics also result when larger pieces of plastic eventually break apart—not degrade, but break into smaller and smaller pieces.
Thin, single use plastics like disposable bags are one of the biggest offenders finding their way into our oceans.
Most plastics, when hit with UV radiation from the sun, begin to break down and gradually become microplastics over time.
A significant enough amount of microplastics now exist in marine environments to be detected in the bodies of fish sampled from different parts of the ocean. Fish and other marine creatures consume the microplastics, concentrating them in their bodies up the food chain. Humans included! People have tested positive as well for microplastics in their bodies.
Why does this matter?
Plastics are created from petroleum—hydrocarbons that when concentrated in the body are toxic. The liver and digestive system struggle and depending on the type and concentration of the synthetic particles many are known carcinogens. Synthetic substances, when regularly consumed, potentially contribute to disease due to a toxic cellular environment. The introduction of synthetic molecules into the Earth’s environment has created a toxic soup in the air, water and soil of the planet. The microplastic issue is just one aspect of the global pollution problem caused by humans! Life in many ways is now marinating in toxins.
What can I do about microplastics?
Avoid products that include plastics, especially microplastic particles. Most common brands of face scrubs, such as Neutregena and other Johnson & Johnson products, contain tiny plastic beads acting as abrasives. Skip those types of products, read the ingredients and avoid chemicals like Polyethylene (PE). This will help to reduce the amount of plastics being flushed through water treatment facilities which eventually end up in our water systems and potentially in wildlife.
Purchase natural fibers derived from plants when possible (e.g. cotton, bamboo or hemp).
Remember to bring—and use—reusable grocery bags. If you don’t have a good alternative to plastic bags, you can reduce your impact by reusing your “single use” plastic as many times as possible. Even using plastic bags as trash can liners is a valid way to reuse them and slightly reduce your environmental impact.
When purchasing anything, choose merchandise with minimal packaging and with the least amount of plastics as possible. Remember that you’re not only reducing your use of plastic by being selective but you’re also voting with your wallet – telling brands that excessively use plastic that you’re going to find an alternative.
All of our individual actions add up over time. Don’t forget that your daily actions DO make a difference!
It has become common practice around the world to use disposable plastic bags to assist us in our every day lives. Out of mere convenience and utility, the plastic bag has become a go-to resource for in-store purchases, big or small.
However, in light of current of research pointing to the environmental impacts of plastic bags, many cities, states, and countries have sought to change this through regulation and legislation.
And most of these are not being recycled. Instead, they are ending up in lakes and oceans, on beaches, in landfills, and even in our own food chain. This is because rather than breaking down over time, they are simply breaking into smaller and smaller pieces.
Legislation on Plastic Bags Around the World
Due to the mounting environmental concerns, legislation is being passed across the globe to mitigate the manufacture and use of disposable plastic bags. The first plastic bag law went into effect in Denmark in 1993, which implemented a tax on the use of plastic bags. Ireland introduced the Bag Tax in 2002, reducing plastic bag use by 90 percent.
Bangladesh became the first country to outright ban thin plastic bags in 2002 after two major floods in 1989 and 1998, which were magnified due to plastic bag waste blocking drains and sewers.
China began enforcing plastic bag bans and regulations in 2008, just before hosting the 2008 Summer Olympics. This eventually caused their largest plastic bag factory to shut down.
Other countries that have enacted regulations on plastic bags include Kenya, the Phillippines, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, and more.
Legislation on Plastic Bags in the U.S.
As of 2016, legislation regarding plastic bag bans spanned 23 states and included 77 bills. Notable city-wide bans are now enforced in Austin, Chicago, Seattle, and Cambridge, Massachusetts.
In 2014, California became the first U.S. state to ban disposable plastic bags statewide. Since then, a de facto statewide ban on plastic bags has been enforced in Hawaii, and the District of Columbia has passed a law banning the distribution of disposable, non-recyclable plastic bags.
However, many states in the U.S. have passed legislation prohibiting regulations on disposable plastic bags. Preemptive legislation that prevents cities, towns, or counties from regulating the sale and distribution of plastic bags is enforced in nine different U.S. states, including Arizona, Michigan, Florida, and Wisconsin.
What you can do about plastic bags…
The ban on disposable plastic bag use is gaining momentum and there are many ways you can contribute to this movement.
The most effective way to impose change is by writing your state representative. It is the job of your legislators to pass laws based on the values of their constituents. Voice your opposition to disposable plastic bags directly to those who can enact change.
In addition to directly contacting your representative, you can also make your voice heard through one of the many campaigns started to ban plastic bags, such as Greenpeace or Clean Up (The Project).
Sometimes the politics behind such a significant change can seem daunting. If you’re looking to promote change on a more local level, contact your local grocer to express your concern.
And finally, bring your own bag! By bringing your own bag to the store with you, you are easily able to say “No, thank you,” to plastic disposable bags when offered. Just because they are not legally banned in your city or state, doesn’t mean you have to use them.
The major trend from this week’s environmental news is no new trend at all. Those who are most effected by climate change are the smallest contributors to it. Those who are the biggest contributors are being asked to pony up, but as we already know, most of them will be getting off scot free.
Here’s what you need to know:
Trump rethinking stance on Paris Agreement?
Bloomberg news reported that the US is softening their stance on the Paris Agreement. In a recent meeting of 30+ countries discussing the climate accord, the EU climate chief Miguel Arias Canete, said that US wants to reingage the agreement from within rather than fully withdrawling.
The Whitehouse was quick to refute this… through Twitter of course:
Our position on the Paris agreement has not changed. @POTUS has been clear, US withdrawing unless we get pro-America terms.
Trump announced the US withdrawl from the Paris Climate Agreement in June.
But I wouldn’t be surprised if he reneged on his stance here too. He seems to have already given up on his party after their failure to repeal Obomacare and in an interview just last week Trump said “the wall will come later”.
Irma and Harvey call for a reality check
Scientific models are really really good. We can predict stuff like hurricane direction and intensity. Irma and Harvey – case in point. Why don’t we trust models to predict how our climate will change?
Models aren’t always right… But many of them are damn close.
Scientists have compared climate model predictions from the past, with actual data, and guess what? They are surprisingly accurate.
Blue Line: Prediction | Black Line: Data
Bottom Line: Climate models are accurate. The repercussions of climate change are devastating: intensified weather such as heat waves, flooding, droughts, and yep, you guessed it… hurricanes.
So while people evacuated and took cover based on weather predictions, a changing climate isn’t imminent enough for us to take action. It’s just so much easier to ignore science when it’s inconvenient.
300+ Companies Commit to Climate Targets
At the launch of Climate Week NYC today companies from around the world are announcing their commitment to carbon emissions reductions. The number of companies making such commitments has doubled since this event last year.
Climate Week NYC is an annual meeting of business, city, and state leaders. At the gathering they share why and how they are embracing a clean economy.
At least 50 of the companies attending are head quartered in the US.
Why is this important?
Companies are warming up to the fact that climate change is real and in order to have long term success they will need to adapt. The fact that the number of companies taking at least some action has doubled since last year shows some momentum.
How important is it?
As with many trends in business, once the early adopters show success from their new practices the rest will fall in a landslide. The private sector has an enormous influence on climate change and if some of the biggest corporations start acting it can have huge repercussions. Unfortunately, big business, like the giant it is, moves slow. I don’t expect to see any major reductions realized soon, but they may stack up quickly when they do.
Cities suing big oil
San Francisco and Oakland filed lawsuits against five oil and gas companies this week. SF expects the cost of climate change mitigation for the city to be about $5 billion this century as it responds to rising sea levels. Along with Oakland, Imperial Beach, Marin County and San Mateo County, San Francisco say the cost of global warming should be borne by those most responsible for it.
From the 3P: On Tuesday, both cities filed suits against a five oil and gas companies (Bay Area-based Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Shell and BP) that they say knew they were creating a climate crisis as early as the 1990s and “launched a multi-million-dollar disinformation campaign to deny and discredit what was clear even to their own scientists: global warming is real and their product is a huge part of the problem.”
Unfair Again: more hurricanes punishing the smallest contributors to climate change
Another storm, hurricane Maria, has come in quick succession of Irma and Harvey. This category 4 hurricane is the worst to hit Puerto Rico in 80 years.
Meanwhile, Barbuda is still reeling from Irma – the entire island was evacuated and 98% of buildings were destroyed. The Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda appealed to the larger nations of the UN for support this week.
In his speech, Gaston Browne noted that his country and other small nations are disproportionately impacted by the effects of global warming and larger nations should play a larger role in aiding them.
It seems logical that the nations contributing most to climate change should be doing the most to fix it. Unfortunately, politics are not very logical. Not only are countries like the US not leading the way to fix it, they’re also highly unlikely to help smaller countries develop the infrastructure needed to protect themselves from sea level rise and more intense storms.
This week Trump announced that the US would be pulling out of the Paris Agreement… and some of the most influential people immediately responded. Here’s what they had to say:
Elon Musk
After staying on as Trump’s council despite their differences in opinion, Elon Musk has now stepped down. It seems that Trump’s decision to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement was the last straw.
Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.
After Trump stated that he was elected to serve the people of Pittsburgh, not the people of Paris in his Paris pullout announcement, the mayor of Pittsburgh released a statement to clarify his stance: The city of Pittsburgh will follow the guidelines of the Paris Agreement.
As the Mayor of Pittsburgh, I can assure you that we will follow the guidelines of the Paris Agreement for our people, our economy & future. https://t.co/3znXGTcd8C
Good ol’ Arnold released a video directly addressing Trump to uphold his responsibility to protect the American people, part of which includes the health impact from pollution.
French President – Emmanuel Macron
Climate change is global… everyone is impacted and everyone needs to do their part.
Last week researches published a study stating that we are changing the climate 170 times faster than natural forces. An unprecedented heatwave in Australia may be a hint of the extreme weather trends we can expect moving forward… and air pollution has become so bad in some cities that he health benefits of exercising outdoors are trumped by the negative impact of the pollution.
Oh ya, we’ve also reached the lowest lows – pollutants have been discovered in one of the most remote places on Earth: in the Marianas trench.
As our impact has reached a new high, politics continues to dip lower. This week Scott Pruitt was officially voted in by the senate to be the head of the EPA… Pruitt has a long history of suing the EPA and is expected to roll back the EPA’s enforcement efforts, further
Environmental highlights from last week:
Researchers quantified the impact humans have on the earth. It’s 170 times faster than natural forces.
Natural astronomical and geophysical forces such as Earth’s orbit around the sun, gravitational interactions with other planets, the sun’s heat output, colliding continents, volcanoes, and evolution, have driven a rate of change of 0.01 degrees Celsius per century.
Greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans over the past 45 years have increased the rate of temperature rise to 1.7 degrees Celsius per century, dwarfing the natural background rate. [Read More]
Australia’s heat wave has set new records (47 C, 116 F) for the Sydney suburb Penrith. Almost every Australian capital city experienced higher-than-average temperatures this January. Meanwhile, the Australian politician Scott Morrison brandished a lump of coal at parliamentary question time, declaring coal to be the future of Australian energy. [Read More]
Air pollution has reached a new high. New research suggests that in at least 15 cities, air pollution has now become so bad that the danger to health of just 30 minutes of cycling each way outweighs the benefits of exercise altogether. [Read More]
As Trump plans to pull the US out of the global climate agreement, Sweden vows to eliminate greenhouse gasses by 2045.
The law is expected to take effect in 2018. It would require the domestic transport sector to decrease its emissions by 70 percent by 2030. Domestic emissions are to be slashed by 85 percent, with the government setting new climate goals every four years. Any remaining emissions would be negated by investing in sustainable development projects abroad or planting trees to sequester carbon within the country. [Read More]
‘Extraordinary’ levels of pollutants were discovered in the Marinas trench. This 10km deep trench in the pacific ocean is considered to be one of the most remote places on earth… but not untouched. Scientists recently discovered the presence of manmade pollutants in crustaceans during an expedition. This discovery is important because it shows the extent of dispersal of known toxic chemicals. [Read More]
Things I didn’t know were a problem but are being solved…
Synthetic textiles, such as fleece jackets, send tiny plastic fibers into wastewater after washing. These bits eventually make their way into rivers, lakes and our oceans, where they pose health threats to plants and animals.
Two dudes came up with a solution: a mesh laundry bag, that goes into the washing machine. The bag captures shedding fibers as clothes are tossed and spun, preventing the fibers from escaping. [Read More]
Chemicals in sunscreen can damage coral reefs, and one Hawaiian senator has proposed a bill to ban sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate in Hawaii. [Read More]
Hey, are you new here? Get up to speed and stay up:
